Sri Rabindranath Kabir filed a consumer case on 23 Nov 2019 against Manager, Safari Groupslfe Enterproses in the Rayagada Consumer Court. The case no is CC/55/2018 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Dec 2019.
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, RAYAGADA,
STATE: ODISHA.
C.C. Case No. 55 / 2018. Date. 07 . 11 . 2019.
P R E S E N T .
Dr. Aswini Kumar Mohapatra, President
Sri Gadadhara Sahu, Member.
Smt.Padmalaya Mishra,. Member
Sri Rabindranatha Kabir, C/O: Bisam Kabir, At:Chatikona, Po:Chatikona, Via:Bissamcuttack, Dist: Rayagada, Pin No. 765 019. Cell No. 9777252503
…. Complainant.
Versus.
1.The Manager, Safari Groups of Enterprises, Plot No. 820/ 3389, Nilakantheswar Marg, 2nd. Floor, Siddhi House, Near Jagannath Temple, Delta Square, Baramunda, Bhubaneswar- 751 003.
… Opposite parties.
For the Complainant:- Self.
For the O.Ps:- Set exparte.
JUDGEMENT
The factual matrix of the case is that the above named complainant alleging deficiency in service against afore mentioned O.Ps for non provide of raw materials required for productions of CFL bulbs as per agreement for which the complainant sought for redressal of the grievances raised by the complainant
The Back ground facts in a nutshell are that the complainant is a educated unemployed youth searching for good job and for his self employment of livelihood as per the advertisement of the O.P. has made an agreement between the O.P and complainant on Dt. 22.1.2018 the O.P. mainly deals with supply of machineries for micro industries/SSI is to eradicate the unemployment problem. The O.P. works with a motto to establish some Micro industries which will facilitate the unemployed fellows to earn their livelihood in a smart manner with all dexterity. The complainant is an unemployed yough who is desirous to establish a CFL & LED bulb production unit and accordingly applied to the O.P. for installation of this aforesaid unit and accordingly applied to the O.P. for installation of this aforesaid unit related machinery. As per agreement the O.P. will be provided raw materials required for the productions of CFL bulbs to the complainant. Accordidng to agreement the complainant has deposited Rs.12,000/- but the O.P. has not supplied the items mentioned in the bill except soldering machine. The complainant has made 100 bulbs and sent the same to the O.P. but till date the O.P. has not made any correspondence. When the complainant recall over phone the O.P made switch off to the mobile and has not contacted with the complainant over the above matter. Hence this C.C. case. The complainant prays the forum direct the O.Ps to refund deposited e amount along with interest from the respective date of deposit till realization and grant such other relief as the hon’ble forum deems fit and proper under circumstances of the case for the best interest of justice.
On being noticed the O.Ps neither entering in to appear before the forum nor filed their written version inspite of more than 15 adjournments has been given to them. Complainant consequently filed his memo and prayer to set exparte of the O.Ps. Observing lapses of around 1(One) years for which the objectives of the legislature of the C.P. Act going to be destroyed to the prejudice of the interest of the complainant. Hence after hearing the counsel for the complainant set the case exparte against the O.Ps. The action of the O.Ps are against the principles of natural justice as envisaged under section 13(2) (b)(ii) of the Act. Hence the O.Ps. were set exparte as the statutory period for filing of written version was over to close the case with in the time frame permitted by the C.P. Act.
We therefore constrained to proceed to dispose of the case, on its merit.
Heard from the complainant. We perused the complaint petition and the document filed by the complainant.
FINDINGS.
Undisputedly the complainant had paid an amount of Rs.12,000/- to the O.P. vide Bill/cash memo No. 3682 Dt. 22.1.2018 for supply of Punching machine, B.Try, Tool Kit set, Series Board, 1 year service agreement, 200 pieces CFL & LED bulb raw materials will be supplied by the O.P. to the complainant(copies of the Bill/cash memo is in the file which is marked as Annexure-I). Further there is no dispute the O.P. had made an agreement with the complainant on Dt. 22.1.2018 (Copies of the agreement is in the file which is marked as Annexure-2).
The main grievance of the complainant is that as per the agreement the O.P. had not supplied the items mentioned in the bill except soldering machine inspite of repeated contact to the O.P. from time to time. Hence this C.C. case.
In the instant case, there was contract between the parties that is to be examined to what exent its obligations are fulfilled. The O.Ps in the instant case had made an agreement on Dt. 22.1.2018 with the complainant to provide raw materials for manufacturing of CFL/LED bulbs. To that effect they made an agreement with the complainant and thereafter the O.P. had not supplied the raw materials to the complainant and not contacted with the complainant inspite of repeated phone call by the complainant. This has undoubtedly made the complainant aggrieved and approached this forum against the O.Ps on grounds of breach of contract/agreement.
In this connection this forum refered the Section-73 of the Indian Contract Act.
Section- 73 in The Indian Contract Act
Compensation for loss or damage caused by breach of contract—When a contract has been broken, the party who suffers by such breach is entitled to receive, from the party who has broken the contract, compensation for any loss or damage caused to him thereby, which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach, or which the parties knew, when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach of it. When an obligation resembling those created by contract has been incurred and has not been discharged, any person injured by the failure to discharge it is entitled to receive the same compensation from the party in default, as if such person had contracted to discharge it and had broken his contract.
In view of the Sec.73 of the Indian Contract Act, we passed the order and disposed of the matter with the following direction.
The O.P has not filed a single piece of document to substantiate his case. Hence, we believed the contentions alleged against the O.P and allowed the complaint in part against the O.P and passed the order on the basis of the above contract Act.
This forum found in the present case in hand there is a gross neglience and deficiency of service on the part of O.P. for not executing the agreement Dt.22.1.2018 which was signed by the O.P.
In view of the above discussion relating to the above case and In Res-IPSA-Loquiture as well as in the light of the settled legal position discussed as above referring citations the plea of the O.Ps to avoid the claim which is Aliane Juris. Hence we allow the above complaint petition in part.
Hence to meet the ends of justice, the following order is passed
. ORDER
In resultant the complaint is allowed in part on exparte.
The Opposite Party is directed to refund the invested amount a sum of Rs.12,000/- along with interest @ Rs.9% per annum from the date of respective deposit i.e on 22.1.2018 till realisation. Parties are left to bear their own cost.
Dictated and corrected by me.
Pronounced in open forum today on this 7th. day of November, 2019 under the seal and signature of this forum. Supply the copy of order free of cost to the parties.
Member Member. President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.