West Bengal

Nadia

CC/2014/113

Ahmed Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Habibur Rahaman Kha - Opp.Party(s)

Makbul Rahaman.

23 Feb 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NADIA
170,DON BOSCO ROAD, AUSTIN MEMORIAL BUILDING.
NADIA, KRISHNAGAR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/2014/113
 
1. Ahmed Mondal
Vill. Potia, Madhabpur P.S. Chapra, Dist. Nadia,
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Pradip Kumar Bandyopadhyay. PRESIDENT
 
For the Complainant:Makbul Rahaman., Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
ORDER

:    J U D G M E N T    :

 

This is an application under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 filed by the complainant praying for refund of advance money of Rs. 55,200/- to the complainant along with interest and for compensation o f Rs. 30,000/- and also for cost. 

The brief fact of the case is that the complainant paid Rs. 55,200/- on 21.03.12 as an advance for purchasing bricks and to that effect OPs issued cash receipt against it.  The OPs agreed to supply 12000 numbers of bricks to the complainant within Magh, 2013.  But the OPs have failed to supply the said bricks to the complainant within the prescribed period time.   The complainant on several occasions visited the office of OPs.  The OPs verbally assured to supply the said bricks, but in vain.  It is a clear case of breach of contract on the part of OPs.  There is a gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of OPs.  Hence, the case with number of prayers mentioned in the relevant portions of the complaint.

As per order No. 7, dtd. 23.12.14 it is clear that OPs received the notice summons, but they did not appear before the Forum.  However, the opportunity was given to the OPs for filing written version.  But it is very much unfortunate that the OPs have failed to file the same.  So the case has been fixed for exparte hearing.

Now this Forum is to consider the following points: 

 

POINTS FOR DECESION

 

  1. Point No. 1:   Whether the complainant can be termed to be a consumer as per

provision of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

  1. Point No. 2:   Whether there is any gross negligence or deficiency in service on

the part of the OPs or not.

  1. Point No. 3:   Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for

or not.

 

REASOND DECISIONS

 

            Point No. 1:

            In the instant case the complainant paid the consideration money of Rs.55,200/- to the OPs for purchasing 12000 numbers of bricks (special) which is clearly revealed from cash receipt dtd. 21.03.12 issued by Rose Brick Field, Prop of Habibar Rahaman and Mukul Khan, OPs in the instant case.  So in view of the status of the complainant and his relationship with the respective OPs.  he is to be treated as consumer in terms of provisions of section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for the purpose of the proceedings.  The point No. 1 is thus decided.

 

            Point No. 2 & 3:

            Perused the complaint, written argument and other relevant documents filed in the instant case by the complainant.  As per order No. 8 dtd. 13.01.2015, the plaint be treated as an evidence as per prayer of complainant.

            On perusal of the advance bricks, cash receipt dtd. 21.03.12 it is crystal clear that Habibar Rahaman and Mukul Khan, OPs in the instant case received Rs. 55,200/- from the complainant for supply of special quality of bricks of 12000 numbers within Magh the year 2013.  But the OPs have failed to deliver the same to the complainant within the said due time which has been averred in his complaint / evidence supported by an affidavit and the said averment has not been challenged by the OPs.  so the statement made in the complaint and his evidence remains unchallenged by the OPs.

            Under the above facts and circumstances we hold that OPs made breach of contract and nonappearance of both OPs in the instant case proves the admission of their allegations stated in the plaint filed by the complainant.  So in this situation it should be duty of the OPs to refund of Rs. 55,200/- to the complainant.  There is a clear gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of the OPs and the complainant is entitled to get relief as against unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs.  The point Nos. 2 & 3 are thus, decided. 

Hence,

 

 

Ordered,

That, the case CC/2014/114 be and the same is allowed exparte against the OPs with cost of Rs. 2,000/-.

That the both OPs are jointly and severally liable for their activities and they are hereby directed to pay Rs. 55,200/- + Rs. 2,000/- i.e., in total of Rs. 57,200/- to the complainant within 30 days from the date of order.  Otherwise, an interest @ 12 % pa shall be charged upon the awarded amount till full realization. 

Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Pradip Kumar Bandyopadhyay.]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.