West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/93/2017

Dipanjan Das, S/o B.Das - Complainant(s)

Versus

Manager, Innovation Parenteral Pvt Ltd - Opp.Party(s)

Sanjit Kr Acharya

03 Mar 2021

ORDER

The case of the complainant Dipanjan Das in brief is that the complainant is the resident of Jibanand Pally, Bharsala more P.O. and P.S. Rampurhat, Dist. Birbhum purchased some medical article from OP No. 1 and 2 and there was telephonic discussion with the complianant and one Subhangshu Sarkar about the terms and condition in respect of purchase.

            That there after Subhrangshu Sar, representative of the OP informed the complainant on 18/05/2017 through e-mail to pay Rs. 1.5 lacks as advance and the rest of payment once truck unloaded at his payment.

            That accordingly the complainant paid 1.5 lacks through online payment by his Banker IDBI Bank, Rampurhat Branch,  Rampurhat, Birbhum to the OP and they acknowledged the payment.

            That there after the OP requested the complainant to send way bill, vat and GST registration instead of vat. Complainant complied the same.

            That inspite of receiving the advance/token amount of Rs. 1.5 lacks and other relevant documents as per their requirement, they did not send the consignment to complainant.

            That there after the complainant requested the OP several time over telephone and also requested to Subhrangshu Sarkar the agent of the company to make arrangement for delivery of the goods but all are in vain he said that there company is unable to delivered to goods.

            That having get the news from Subhrangshu Sarkar that Ops unable to delivered to goods then complainant sent e-mail to the OP on 05/08/2017 informing pros and cons and requested them to refund the amount of Rs. 1.5 lacks which was paid in advance an also way bill.

 After receiving the e-mail the OP did not reply against the mail on 05/08/2017 which was sent by the complainant.

That thereafter the compliant send legal notice dated 02/09/2017 through his lawyer Pintu Mukherjee, Advocate Rampurhat Court, P.O and P.S. Rampurhat, Dist. Birbhum to the OP by Regd. Post with A/D.

That the OP received the notice and sent their reply on 09/09/2017, but their version is country to the terms and conditions which they conveyed the complaint through e-mail dated 18/05/2017.

That thereafter the complainant sent another legal notice dated 06/10/2017 twice through his lawyer Partha Dey Advocate Rampurhat Court, P.O and P.S. Rampurhat, Dist. Birbhum to the OP by Regd. Post

 

 

with A/D, but both the envelopes have been returned to sender with endorsement “Left” and “Refused” although those notice was sent to the actual person in actual address.

Complainant requested several time to the OP but all are in vain. Having no other alternative the complainant has come to the Forum/Commission proper relief.

OP No. 1 and 2 Innovation Parenteral Pvt Ltd Shasti Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan and Innovation Parenteral Pvt Ltd Asok Van, Dahiser (East), Mumbai 400068 did not appear and contest the case because summons not served due to mismatch the address.

That thereafter exparte run by the OP No. 1 and 2 after newspaper publication the TIMES NATIONS dated December 05, 2018 reflected order No. 16 dated 07/02/2019.

After received of notice the OP No. 3 Branch Manager IDBI Bank, Rampurhat, Birbhum appeared in this case and prayed for time for filing Written Version but thereafter he backed out from the case reflected order No. 7 dated 11/05/2018.

Practically the case was heard exparte against all the Ops.

The complainant Dipanjan Das has filed evidence on affidavit, with document and written argument.

            Heard argument of the Ld. Advocate/agent of the complainant.

Upon pleading of the party the following points one to be considered for discussion.

 

Point for determination/Issues.

1. Is the case maintainable?
2. Has there been any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party?
3. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief/reliefs as prayed for?

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos. 1, 2, and 3. 

All the above three (3) issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience of consideration.

            Firstly, we find that the case has been initiated within the statutory period of limitation and the allegation covered in the complaint touches firmly the fact that complainant is a consumer as per definition of the term ‘Consumer’ as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act. Accordingly the case is maintainable.

            Now, to evaluate the other two issues, we have gone through the petition of complaint to its each and every line, the affidavit-in-chief and the documentary evidence as produced which are with the record.

From the documents tendered by the petitioner it shows that the complainant is an unemployed youth. He has no other sours of income and he stated this aforesaid self-employment to maintain his livelihood.

This is admitted fact that the complainant paid in advanced Rs. 1,50,000/- to OP INOVATION PARAINTAL for purchasing “saline” for his self-employment through online payment by the Banker IDBI Bank i.e. OP No. 3 and they acknowledged the payment.

            That thereafter representative of the OP i.e. Subhrangshu Sarkar informed the complainant on 18/05/2017 through e-mail to pay Rs. 1.5 Lacks as advanced and rest of payment once truck unloaded at his payment. But the OP did not delivered the goods intentionally and they did not received the letter to avoid

 

there liability and to grebe advanced amount paid by the complainant.

            This is admitted fact that the OP INOVATION PARAINTAL received the advanced money of Rs. 1.5 Lacks on 18/05/2017 through there letter being reference IPPL/PNOI/LNROI, dated 09/09/2017. That thereafter complainant sent to letter to OP dated 06/10/2017 and 20/10/2017 though his Ld. Advocate Rampurhat Court and that said letter had been returned to the sender address with an endorsement by postal authority “Left” “refused”. That from the aforesaid statement it is proved that the OP received the advanced amount from the complainant, but did not delivered the goods intentionally and they did not received the letter to avoid there liability and to grabe the advanced amount with was paid by the complainant through OP No. 3 IDBI Bank, Rampurhat, Birbhum.

            So that aforesaid act of the OP is amounting to beach of contact as well as deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice.

            All the issues are thus decided in favour of the complainant but in the following manner.

                        Hence, it is,                                         

                                    O R D E R E D,

that the instant C.F Case No. CC/93/2017 be and same is allowed exparte against all the opposite parties in part with cost.

The opposite parties 1 and 2 are here by directed jointly and severally to refund the sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- (One Lacks Fifty Thousand Only)  with 5% interest per annum form the date 18/05/2017 i.e. the purchase money paid by complainant as against purchasing “Saline” the time limit given by the order i.e. 30 days from the date of this order in default the interest will be computed from the date of purchase till realization.

The OP No 1 and 2 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation, for deficiency in service for harassment and mental pain cost to that effect by them to the complainant within said period of 30 days from this days of this order failing which the complainant is at liberty to put this order in execution as per law.

The instant case is thus disposed of.

Let a copy of this final order be given/handed over to the Petitioner and to all the Ops separately by post free of cost at once.