West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/42/2017

Sudarshan Ghanta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Madan Jana - Opp.Party(s)

27 Dec 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

     Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and 

Pulak Kumar Singha, Member.

 

Complaint Case No.42/2017

             Sudarshan Ghanta, S/o late Anukul Chandra Ghanta, residing at Village and P.O. Gochhati

             Police Station, Daspur, District - Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721148.   

                                                                                                                    ………..……Complainant.

                                                                              Vs.

             Madan Jana, Proprietor of M/s Suraj Enterprise of Village- Bar Jalalpur, Karala, Police

             Station Daspur, District- Paschim Medinipur, PIN-721148.

                                                                                                 .....……….….Opp. Party.

                                                    

              For the Complainant: Mr. Tapas Adhya, Advocate.

              For the O.P.               : Mr. Swapan Bhattacherjee, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 27 /12/2017

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President –This consumer complaint u/s 12 of the C.P. Act has been filed by the complainant Sri Sudarshan Ghanta against the above named O.Ps, alleging deficiency in service on their part.

              Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows:-

              O.P. is the proprietor of M/s Suraj Enterprise and he deals in selling building construction materials in the locality and village Bar Jalalpur within the jurisdiction of the Forum.  The complainant gave an order before the O.P. for supplying  building materials for construction of his own house and he also paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance payment on different dates to the O.P. and the O.P. also issued money receipts to the complainant.  Complainant placed an order for supplying 2000 cft. stone chips and other building materials before the O.P. and the O.P. delivered 2000 cft. stone chips to the site of

Contd…………………..P/2

 

( 2 )

the complainant’s house on 13/04/2016 and 14/04/2016.  Sometimes thereafter, it was detected that the said quantity of the stone chips were decreased after rain and the complainant also observed that huge coal substance was mixed with those stone chips.  Due to rain water, such coal substance was melted.  It is stated that selling of such bad materials is not only fraudulent act but it was also endanger to human life as the stone chips is one of the basic materials of concrete construction and had those stone chips completely used for construction of roof of the building, it would have collapsed and endangered to life.  The complainant therefore went to the shop of the O.P and requested him to withdraw bad quality of stone chips from his site and also requested to refund the advance money but the O.P. refused to return back the bad materials and to refund the advance money to the complainant.  On 27/05/2016, the complainant also intimated the said fact to local police station and requested them to take necessary steps against the O.P and the police authority assured him that they will take action against the O.P.  It is stated that in spite of repeated request and reminders, the O.P. has not removed the said building materials and has not refunded the advance money of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainant.  Again on 15/07/2016, the complainant went to the house of the O.P. and requested him to refund the advance money and to remove the bad quality of building materials but the O.P. refused to do so. Police authority also did not take any action against the O.P. The complainant therefore moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta against the police authority for not taking any steps against the O.P and the said application was numbered as WP no.10394 (W) of 2016 and the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court was pleased to dispose of the same on 28/06/2016 expressing hope and trust that the O.C shall ensure completion of investigation in accordance with law.  It is stated that due to negligency and deficiency in service on the part of the O.P., the complainant had suffered a lot.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P to return back Rs.5,00,000/- with 18% interest, an award of compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- and an award of damarage of Rs.2,00,000/-. 

                  Opposite party has contested this case by filling a written version.  

                 Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the complainant has filed this case with some false and fictitious allegation against the O.P.  It is stated that the complainant did not place any order for supply of 2000 cft. stone chips to the O.P and that the O.P did not supply any such stone chips to the complainant.  The complainant purchased TMT bar and cement on credit from the O.P.  It is specifically stated that the O.P has no business of stone chips.  O.P. therefore claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

Contd…………………..P/3

 

( 3 )

              To prove his case, the complainant Sudarshan Ghanta  has examined himself as PW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and the documents,  relied upon by the complainant, have been marked as exbt.- 1 series.  During the cross-examination of PW-1, one xerox copy of a document was marked as exbt- 2 on admission.

            On the other hand, O.P has examined himself as OPW-1 by tendering a written examination-in-chief and another witness namely Samir Manna as OPW-2.  The documents, relied upon by the O.P., have been marked as exbt. A to G series respectively.  

 

                                                                 Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer?
2. Is the complainant a consumer of the O.P in respect of alleged purchasing of stone chips?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?    

                    

Decision with reasons

          

         For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

                    Deficiency in service on the part of the O.P has been alleged by the complainant on the ground that the O.P supplied him inferior quality of stone chips for construction of his house after receiving Rs.5,00,000/- from him as advance payment.  It is specifically stated by the complainant that he paid a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as advance payment on different dates to the O.P. for purchasing building materials and the O.P. also issued money receipt to him and thereafter the O.P delivered 2000 cft. stone chips in the site of the complainant’s house on 14/04/2016 and 14/04/2016 but sometimes thereafter it was detected that the said stone chips were of inferior quality.  In his written objection, O.P has specifically stated that the complainant never placed any order for supply of 2000 cft. stone chips to the O.P and the O.P never supplied any such stone chips to the complainant.  According to the O.P, the complainant purchased TMT bar and cement on credit from the O.P. and that the O.P  has no business of stone chips and therefore no question does arise for supplying  of stone chips to the complainant.  In view of such denial,  the burden lies upon the complainant to prove that the O.P deals in such business of selling stone chips and that the complainant purchased any such stone chips from the O.P. On this score, we find that the complainant produced no cogent evidence at all to show that he placed any such order before the O.P for supply of stone chips after making payment of Rs.5,00,000/- and that the O.P at all supplied such stone

Contd…………………..P/4

( 4 )

chips, said to be of inferior quality,  to the complainant.  The documents (exbt.- 1 series),  so relied upon by the complainant, do not show that he at all purchased any stone chips from the O.P.  He also produced no document to show that the O.P deals in selling stone chips.  Since the complainant has miserably failed to prove by adducing cogent documentary evidence to show and to prove that the O.P at all deals in selling stone chips and that the O.P at all supplied any such stone chips to the complainant after receiving alleged sum of Rs.5,00,000/-, so the question of deficiency in service regarding supply of bad quality of  stone chips does not arise.  It is therefore held that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and the petition of complaint is therefore liable to be dismissed.

                                All the points are accordingly disposed of.

                     In the result, the complaint case fails,

                                            Hence, it is,

                                           Ordered,

                that the complaint case no.42/2017  is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

 

              Dictated & corrected by me

                 Sd/-B. Pramanik.                    Sd/- P. K. Singha                       Sd/-B. Pramanik. 

                        President                                 Member                                    President 

                                                                                                                   District Forum

                                                                                                                Paschim Medinipur