West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/169/2015

Abhradeep Basumallik, S/O Late Asit Basumallik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Indranil Mukherjee, S/O Tapan Mukherjee. - Opp.Party(s)

13 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _169_ OF ___2015__

 

DATE OF FILING : 6.4.2015                       DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  13.8.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :    Mrs. Sharmi Basu

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             : Abhradeep Basumallik, s/o late Asit Basumallik of 154/B, Linton Street, P.S. Beniapukur, Kolkata – 14.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                            :   1.  Indranil Mukherjee,s/o Tapan Mukherjee

2.  Mrs. Gopa Mukherjee,w/o Indranil Mukherjee  both of 62, Lake Avenue, Ground Floor, Kolkata – 26, P.S. Tollygunge.

 

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President                                    

            This is an application under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 filed by the complainant against the O.P who are Interior Decorators running under the name and style of M/s Panorama Décor having their office at 62, Lake Avenue, Ground Floor, Kolkata- 26 , P.S Tollygunge. It has further stated that according to the quotation submitted by the O.P and with the assurance to complete the work within three months from the date of quotation i.e. on 12.3.2014 but they did not keep their assurance and they only completed a negligible portion of their work and stopped the same after completion of 25% of the work and demanded further money with the assurance that once payment is made i.e. on 12.3.2014, 25.3.2014, 15.4.2014 , 15.5.2014, 12.6.2014 ,work will be completed since money is required for purchasing raw materials. It has further claimed that complainant already made payments to the O.P whenever they required by the O.P and entered into an agreement executed on 12.3.2014 and thus total amount of Rs.7,83,000/- was paid in different dates through cheque and cash. But the O.P deviated from the quotation they have placed and the terms and conditions which was made by and between the parties and thus caused deficiency in service under the C.P Act, 1986. Hence, this case with a refund to refund the entire consideration money of Rs.7,83,000/- with interest and compensation of Rs. 2 lacs , as well as cost and also prayed for removal of the low standard and quality of product from the premises of the complainant.

            The summon was issued as per direction of this Forum and postal remark is “not claimed” which is a good service because it is within the knowledge of the O.P regarding service of summon. But they did not appear before the postal department to claim the summon inspite of intimation. However, a date was fixed for appearance of the O.P and filing written version on 17.6.2015. But inspite of that opportunity O.P did not appear . Accordingly the case is taken up for exparte hearing.

            Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps or not.

 

                                                            Decision with reasons

            At the very outset it may be mentioned here that this O.P after executing the agreement with the complainant not only acted improperly as per agreement claimed by the complainant which is unchallenged, but one this is clear that they avoided the process of the Forum by not accepting the same. This is further glaring example of deficiency of service because they were aware if the summon is received then they have to appear before this Forum but they have no knowledge that after knowing the service of summon if any person did not accept or claim the same, it amounts to good service ,that is why we find that prima facie O.ps have acted deficiency in service which amounts to unfair trade practice also .

            Moreover, from the payment schedule and the agreement itself it is true that O.P did not act according to the agreement, although received Rs.7,83,000/-. This is a deficiency in service, that is why complainant wants to remove the low standard and quality of product from his house. We have nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant when he has filed one application and prays for treating the contents of the complaint as an evidence of the complainant. The petition is supported by an affidavit. So, that contents is taken up as an evidence as per prayer of the complainant and when the same has not been denied by the O.Ps, even after giving opportunity of being heard, they failed to avail the said opportunity, that is why, they are habitually negligent in performing their act which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            Hence,

                                                                        Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed in exparte with cost of Rs.25000/- payable by the O.P to the complainant.

The O.P is directed to return the total consideration money of Rs.7,83,000/- within 45 days from this date, failing which, interest @9% p.a. will carry on the aforesaid sum from the date of fling of this case till realization.

The O.P is further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac within 45 days and also directed to remove all the low quality products supplied by the O.P from the house of the complainant after complying the above mentioned directions in toto.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

 

 

Member                                                                                                                       President

 

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

 

                                                Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed in exparte with cost of Rs.25000/- payable by the O.P to the complainant.

The O.P is directed to return the total consideration money of Rs.7,83,000/- within 45 days from this date, failing which, interest @9% p.a. will carry on the aforesaid sum from the date of fling of this case till realization.

The O.P is further directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 1 lac within 45 days and also directed to remove all the low quality products supplied by the O.P from the house of the complainant after complying the above mentioned directions in toto.

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

 

 

 

Member                                                                                                                       President