In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.96/2011.
1) Subrata Barik,
Hasimpur, P.O. Keshiaary,
Dist. Paschim Midnapore, proprietor of Samiran
Power Station Office at Keshiaary,
Dist. Paschim Midnapore, Pin-721133. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Green Wheels Corporation, Co-ordination Office at
B-9/163, Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal (Strategically allied
with Lap Auto Mobiles) B-9/283 Kalyani, Nadia, P.S. Kalyani.
2) Green Wheels Corporation, Liason Office at
Suit No.6, 8th Floor, Santiniketan, 8, Camac Street,
Kolkata-17, P.S. Shakespeare Sarani.
3) Loknath Auto Project Office
B-9/163, Kalyani, Nadia, West Bengal.
4) Sai Automobile,
Dealer – Battery Operated two wheeler
Keshiary, Paschim Medinipur. ---------- Opposite Parties
---------- Proforma Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Samiksha Bhattacharya, Member
Order No. 26 Dated 26-11-2013.
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular and we find that complainant is an unemployed youth and he proposed to start one business for running his livelihood under self employment scheme. Complainant came to learn regarding business activity of Green Wheel Corporation from one Laxmi Kanta Nag, proprietor of Sai Auto Mobile, proforma o.p. no.4 along with one of the dealer of Green Wheel Corporation and the battery operators of the two wheeler whose office at Keshiary, Pashim Midnapore.
For the purpose of charges the batteries of the two wheelers, the o.ps. specially o.p. no.1 through Sai Auto mobiles dealers proposed the complainant to open one showroom at Keshiary for trading battery for operating two wheelers vehicle and related machineries for charges of the said batteries. O.p. no.1 is running his business through Lokenath Auto Project.
Complainant contacted with the o.ps. for opening a show room (power station) for charging and selling the two wheelers batteries. Accordingly an agreement was reached between the parties (Subrata Barik and o.p. No.1) for the purpose of marketing and trading the battery of the said company. It was agreed by the parties that the complainant will have to open well furnished show room and the cost of the same to be borne by the complainant and all other materials like battery, kids, charge machine etc. to be supplied by the o.ps. upon depositing a lump sum amount through cheque / bank draft in the name of o.p. no.1.
On the basis of the said agreement the complainant remodeled the existing pucca construction owned by him and well equipped the said room by making colour, gate and electric wiring etc. as per the instruction of the agent of the concern o.p. An amount of Rs.30,000/- was incurred by the complainant for renovating the show room as such the complainant had to invest the said amount for preparing the show room etc.
Pursuant to the agreement complainant was directed to deposit lump sum rupees in favour of the o.ps. company. Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.88,625/-.
Accordingly one machine was sent with cover packet but o.p. no.1 did not supply the kids required for installation of machineries in spite of several request of the complainant. As a result the complainant made representation to o.p. no.1 and requested them for supplying the kids for installation of said machine and for sending a technical man for assisting the complainant relating to installation and operation of the said machine.
O.ps. did not pay any heed to the complainant’s approach but by the letter dt.20.8.08 vide no.200822 o.p. no.1 requested to send document like cheque / bank draft including money receipt pursuant to any payment for refunding the deposited sum. Hence the case was filed by the complainant with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. nos.3 and 4 had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. lawyer of o.ps. in the course of argument submitted that the case has got no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. O.p. nos.1 and 2 did not contest the case by filing w/v and matter was heard ex parte against o.p. nos.1 and 2.
Decision with reasons:
In view of the findings above and on careful scrutiny of the entire materials on record we find that though the notice upon o.p. no.2 was returned with endorsement ‘unknown’, ld. lawyer filed power on behalf of o.p. nos.1 and 2 both. But they did not file any written version. Only o.p. no.3 filed written version but the agreement was done in between o.p. no.1 and the complainant. All documents filed by the complainant are unchallenged by o.p. nos.1 ad 2. It is admitted fact that complainant paid Rs.88,625/- in favour of o.p. no.1. Complainant filed an amendment petition in later stage that the complainant would not be entitled to get Rs.5000/- as processing fee. So complainant’s prayer is to refund Rs.83,625/- with interest. In his petition complainant alleged that according to the terms and conditions o.p. no.1 did not supply all the accessories required for power station. So the complainant could not run his business and demanded to refund his money. But there is no document furnished by complainant that which accessories were received by him. It is clear that o.p. nos.1 and 2 did not supply the necessary machineries to the complainant for running the power station. So we find that o.p. nos.1 and 2 had sufficient deficiency in service being service providers to their consumer / complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on ex parte with cost against o.p. nos.1 and 2 and dismissed against o.p. nos.3 and 4. O.p. nos.1 and 2 are jointly directed to refund a sum of Rs.83,625/- (Rupees eighty three thousand six hundred twenty five) only which was deposited by the complainant and are directed to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 10% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Complainant is directed to return the accessories to o.p. nos.1 and 2 which accessories were supplied by them at the time of realization of the aforesaid amount.
