DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS ,
AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. _88_ OF ___2016_
DATE OF FILING : 24.8.2016 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 06.03.2018
Present : President :
Member(s) : Jhunu Prasad & Subrata Sarker
COMPLAINANT : Prasanta Naskar, son of Purnendu Naskar of Kalitala (Daulatabad), P.O South Lakshminarayanpur, P.S Mathurapur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743354.
-VERSUS -
O.P/O.Ps : Dilip Halder, son of late Nishikanta Halder of Kalitala, P.O South Lakshminarayanpur, P.S Mathurapur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743354.
___________________________________________________________________
J U D G E M E N T
Jhunu Prasad, Lady Member
Shorn of unnecessary details, the case present before the Forum for adjudication may be summarized thus :-
The complainant placed an order on 02.01.2015 to the Opposite Party to install one rolling shutter in the shop room of the complainant, accordingly the complainant paid Rs. 4,000/- as advance money to the Opposite Party and thereafter the complainant paid Rs.6,000/- by two installments to the Opposite Party, but the Opposite Party did not install the said rolling shutter in the shop room of the complainant within time.
Thereafter the complainant several times requested the Opposite Party to install the rolling shutter in the said shop room of the complainant, but the Opposite Party did not do so.
Hence, the complainant filed this instant complaint before the Forum for getting relief as prayed for.
Issued notice upon the Opposite Party.
Resisting the complaint, the Opposite Party filed the written version denying the contentions and all material allegations made by the complainant in the petition of complaint and stating inter alia, that the complainant has no cause of action, the complaint is not maintainable and absolutely false.
The specific case of the Opposite Party, in crisp, is that Opposite Party admitted that an order was placed by the complainant for installing the rolling shutter in the shop room of the complainant and price of the shutter has been fixed of Rs.16,570/-, accordingly the complainant paid Rs, 4,000/- on 02.01.2015.
It is also admitted by the Opposite Party regarding receipt of Rs. 10,000/- by three installments from the complainant. But thereafter the complainant lost his interest to pay the balance amount of the said rolling shutter.
The unfinished shutter is still lying in the OP’s factory and the OP. on four times asked the complainant to pay the balance amount, but the complainant did not pay any heed to pay the same. The shutter in question is ready and willing to install the same as and when the petitioner pay full of balance price.
In view of the facts and circumstances all allegations made in the complaint are false and the case is liable to be dismissed with cost.
POINTS FOR DECISION:-
1) Is the complainant a consumer or not?
2) Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.
3) Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS:-
At the time of argument the complainant and the Opposite Party have filed affidavit –in- chief, BNA, and some Xerox copies of documents to support of their claim.
We have carefully considered the submissions made before us advanced by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant and Opposite Party and perusal all the material on record, it appears that the complainant is a consumer within the per view of section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act 1986
On overall evaluation of the argument advanced by the Ld. Advocated of the both parties, and on critical appreciation of the case record, it is evident that, admittedly an order has been placed by the complainant to the Opposite Party on 02.01.2015 and admittedly the complainant paid total Rs.10,000/-to the Opposite Party by three installments.
Fact remains that in spite repeated request by the complainant the Opposite Party did not install the said rolling shutter within time, which amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party within the per view of section 2(1)(g) of C.P. Act 1986 and liable to install the rolling shutter on the shop room of the complainant. The complainant also paid the balance money of Rs.6,570/- to the Opposite Party at the time of installation of the rolling shutter.
Therefore, in light of the above analysis, it is concluded that the complainant has successfully proved his case. So, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant is entitled to get relief as prayed for and consequently the points for consideration are decided in affirmative.
In short, the complainant deserves success.
Hence,
it is,
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party with cost of Rs.2,000/-.
That the Opposite Party is directed to install the rolling shutter on the shop room of the complainant for which the complainant paid Rs.10,000/- to the O.P, within one month from this order and the complainant is to pay Rs. 6750/- as balance amount to the Opposite Party at the time of installation.
That the Opposite Party is also directed to pay of Rs.2,000/- as litigation cost to the complainant within one month from the date of this order.
Failing which, the Opposite Party shall have to pay of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Let plain copies of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost when applied for.
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
Member
