IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/73/2020
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
30.07.2020 10.03.2021 07.12.2022
Complainant: Jiaul Hoque
S/o- Kolimuddin Ahamed,
The Proprietor of M/S R.B. Enterprise, of
Vill- & P.O. Madhurkul,
P.S.- Domkal, Dist- Murhsidabad
Pin-742406
-Vs-
Opposite Party:(1) The Manager
Star Cement Limited
Of Mayur Garden, 2nd Floor,
Opp. Rajib Bhawan, G.S. Road, Gwahati
Pin-781005
(2) The Branch Manager
Bandhan Bank, Notunpara Branch
P.O. & P.s. Domkal,
Dist- Murshidabad,
Pin-742303
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Debasish Gupta
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties : N.A.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das…………………………..........President.
Sri. Subir Sinha Roy………………………………….Member.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
FINAL ORDER
SMT. ALOKA BANDYOPADHYAY, MEMBER
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Jiaul Hoque (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against The Manager Star Cement Limited and Anr. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The sum and substance of the complaint case is as follows:-
The Complainant is a Government enlisted contractor and suppliers as well as proprietor of the Firm in the name and style of M/S R.B. Enterprise, having branch office at Murshidabad and the Complainant works as per order of the Government tender for his livelihood and the nature of work is building and road construction and for this purpose he needs cement. The O.P. No. 1 is the supplier of cement and the Complainant made RTGS through Bandhan Bank vide UTR No. BDBLR 52017021800000151 and UTR No. ALLA20403153004363286 amounting of Rs. 2,88,000/- in each occasion for procurement of cement. The O.P. No. 1 had received the said amount and had not supplied the Cement properly as per the order of the Complainant. The O.P. received total amount of Rs. 5,76,000/- (Rs. 2,88,000/- + Rs. 2,88,000/-). But in spite of that he had delivered the cement comprising of Rs. 2,43,810/- but not delivered the cement of remaining price i.e. Rs. 3,32,190/- and for that reason the Complainant suffered irreparable loss and injury though he had sent demand notice by registered post on 22.11.2019 through an advocate for refund of Rs. 3,32,190/- within 7 days but the O.P. refused to pay the same. Finding no other alternative the Complainant filed the instant case before this Commission for appropriate relief.
Defence Case
After due service of the notice the O.P. No 1 has not appeared to controvert the plea of the Complainant and O.P. No. 2 appeared and filed an application for expunging out the name of the Opposite Party as he is no way connected with the supply of cement.
On the basis of the complaint and written version the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case:
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Have the OPs any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
Point no.1, 2 & 3
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
Undoubtedly the Complainant made RTGS through Bandhan Bank vide UTR No. BDBLR 52017021800000151 and UTR No. ALLA20403153004363286 amounting of Rs. 2,88,000/- in each occasion. As per petition of the complaint the Complainant paid the said amount to the O.P. No.1 for procurement of cement but he had not supplied the Cement properly as per the order of the Complainant. The O.P. received total amount of Rs. 5,76,000/- (Rs. 2,88,000/- + Rs. 2,88,000/-) but in spite of that he had delivered the cement comprising of Rs. 2,43,810/- but not delivered the cement of remaining price of Rs. 3,32,190/-. The Complainant had sent demand notice by registered post on 22.11.2019 through an advocate for refund of Rs. 3,32,190/- within 7 days but the O.P.1 refused to pay the same.
O.P. No. 2 filed a document duly signed by the branch manager from where it has been evident that he has made RTGS of Rs. 2,88,000/- vide UTR No. BDBLR 52017021800000151 and Rs. 2,88,000/- through UTR No. ALLA20403153004363286.
From the case record it is found that from the date of admission of the case till today the Complainant has not taken any steps to take part in the proceeding. The Complainant has also not filed any documents to show that there was any contact between the Complainant and O.P. No. 1 regarding the supply of cement.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the documents filed before us we are of the view that there is no deficiency on the part of the O.P. 2 as he had performed his part properly and moreover the Complainant has also not claimed any relief from the O.P. No. 2. Due to lack of proper documents and the long absence of the Complainant from the date of admission of the case to till date it indicates that the Complainant is not interested to proceed with the case. So, we are decline to give any relief to the Complainant and as such the case is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 30.07.2020 and admitted on 10.03.2021. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is dismissed.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the complaint Case No. CC/73/2020 be and same is dismissed on contest against the O.P.s but without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
Member
Member Member President.
