DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

C. C.  CASE NO.  576/2016

  Date of Filing:                  Date of Admission:                             Date of Disposal:

   08.09.2016                            19.09.2016                                            21.09.2017

 Complainant:-        Indranil Bhattacharya, Flat No-1401,

                                   Vistas Tower-4, Uniworldcity, Newtown, Kolkata-700 156.

                                                             Vs.

Opposite Parties:- 1)  Godrej & Boyec Manufacturing, Godrej Bhavan,

                                         Block-GN-30, Sector-V, Salt Lake City, Kolkata-700 091.

                                    2)  IDEE Concepts Private Limited,

                                          (Furniture Koti, Authorised Service Partner

                                            of Godrej Interior), 10/A, VIP Road, Teghoria,

                                             Kolkata-700 059.

P R E S E N T :-   Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay…………President.

                       :-   Sri.  Siddharta Ganguli  ….………………………Member.

                       :-   Smt.  Silpi Majumder………………………………Member.

J U D G E M E N T

This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs.

The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that he paid some amount to the OPs for construction of modular kitchen at his flat and accordingly the OP-2 issued a money receipt to the tune of Rs.1,27,949/- in favour of Sonali Chowdhury dated 26.04.2015. It was scheduled that within six weeks from the date of payment the OPs will complete the entire work. But the allegation of the Complainant is that till date inspite of receipt of the entire amount the OPs did not bother to complete the work as per their commitment. For this reason the Complainant is facing serious trouble in everyday life. As the Ops have miserably failed to redress his grievance, hence by filing this complaint the Complainant has prayed for refund of the entire amount as paid along with compensation and cost due to his unnecessary harassment, mental agony and pain.

The petition of complaint have been contested by the OPs by filing written version separately contending that the Complainant is not a consumer and thus he has no locus-standi to file this complaint as payment for modular kitchen was made by Sonali Chowdhury, who had accepted the terms and conditions of the OPs. According to the OPs as they did not provide any service to the Complainant, the OPs cannot be termed as service providers of the Complainant and hence the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief as sought for in the prayer portion of the petition of complaint. According to the OPs the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.

The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with several papers and documents in support of his contention. The OPs have filed BNA separately.

We have carefully perused the record; papers and documents filed by the parties on which they have placed reliance, BNAs and heard argument advanced by the contesting parties. The Ld. Counsel for the OPs has attracted our notice to the plea, which they have taken in their written versions mentioning that the Complainant is not a consumer. We took the point for hearing at first. We have noticed that the money receipt was issued in the name of one Sonali Chowdhury, who had accepted the terms and conditions of the OP-2 by putting her signature on 26.04.2015. We have asked the Complainant as to why the money receipt was issued in the name of Sonali Chowdhury, in reply the Complainant replied that the amount was paid by Sonali Chowdhury, being his wife. The Complainant has admitted that he did not avail of or hire any service from the OPs by making any farthing or made any promise to pay any amount and the entire amount has been incurred by Sonali Chowdhury. We have also noticed that the Complainant did not accept any terms and conditions of the OP-2 by putting his signature; rather Sonali Chowdhury put her signature upon accepting the same. Therefore in our view the Complainant cannot be termed as consumer because he did not hire any service from the OPs and simultaneously the OPs cannot be termed as service providers of the Complainant as they did not get any amount from the Complainant for any work. Moreover as Sonali Chowdhury is still alive, the complaint should be filed by her, not by her husband and as the instant complaint filed by the husband of Sonali Chowdhury, as stated by the Complainant, not mentioned in the complaint, hence the complaint cannot be maintainable. Therefore the Complainant is not at all entitled to get any relief as sought for through this complaint.

Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the complaint is dismissed on contest without any cost being not maintainable. The complaint is thus disposed of accordingly.     

Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.

Member                                   Member                                                       President

Dictated and corrected by me: