: J U D G M E N T :
The petitioner, Prabir Biswas has filed the instant case under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the opposite party, Masiur Rahaman, Proprietor of Rani Brick Field, Chapra, Nadia.
Case of the petitioner in brief:-
The petitioner gave an advance of Rs. 43,700/- to the proprietor of Rani Brick Field herein the opposite party on 10.10.12 for purchasing a special quality of brick. The OP took the advance for supplying 10160 bricks. He promised to deliver 3000 bricks in the Bengali month of Baishak and rest 7160 bricks at the end of the season, i.e., the delivery was supposed to be completed within 2013. But unfortunately OP did not supply a single brick to the petitioner till date even after repeated requests. Petitioner went to the OP’s place on 11.11.13, 04.01.14 & 03.03.14 & lastly on 16.09.14 but without any positive result. The OP neither supplied the bricks nor repaid the advance amount.
Finding no other alternative the petitioner has instituted this case and has prayed for the following relief.
- Directing the OP to refund the advance amount of Rs. 43,700/-.
- Directing the OP to pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation along with
litigation cost.
The case was heard exparte against the OP, Masiur Rahaman on 15.06.15. The petitioner has filed written argument and did not adduce any evidence in support of his case.
From the pleadings of the petition as well as the documents filed by him, we frame the following issues:-
1) Is the petitioner a consumer under the OP?
2) Is the OP deficient in his service?
3) Is the petitioner entitled to get relief from the OP as prayed for?
DECISIONS WITH REASONS
1. The petitioner is a consumer under the OP because the letter has taken advance with a promise to supply bricks and has also issued a receipt to the tune of the advance amount.
2 & 3
These points are taken up together for sake of brevity and convenience.
The OP has failed to supply bricks as per agreement within the schedule date. The petitioner waited for one more year. But OP did not show any positive gesture. Hence, the OP is deficient in his service and is liable to compensate the petitioner. Petitioner is entitled to get relief as prayed for.
IPO paid is correct.
Hence,
Ordered,
That, the case CC/2015/22 be and the same is allowed exparte against the OP with cost.
The OP is directed to refund the advance amount of Rs. 43,700/- within one month from the date of order. OP is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for mental agony and pain and litigation cost of Rs. 2,000/- along with advance amount Rs. 43,700/- (i.e., Rs. 43,700/- + Rs. 3000/- + Rs. 2000/-) to the complainant within one month, in default, the decretal amount will carry interest @ 9% per annum till final payment.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
