MR. KUNDAN KUMAR KUMAI

This is an appeal u/s 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, preferred against the final order/judgement dated 19/11/2015, passed by the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur in CC/34/2015.

Brief facts of the Appellant’s case is that the Respondent no.1/Complainant intended to purchase a harvester and other agricultural products and accordingly Respondent no.2/OP no.3, had visited and as per instruction of the Appellant and Respondent no.2/OP no.3, the Respondent no.1/Complainant had paid Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand) only on 19/08/2014 and Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only on 09/09/2014 and inspite of payment of Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety thousand) only, the Appellant and Respondent no.2/OP no.3 had failed to deliver the said harvester causing financial loss to the Respondent no.1/Complainant. The Respondent no.1/Complainant then lodged this complaint with necessary prayers.

The Appellant contested the case by filing written version wherein it was stated that the Respondent no.1/Complainant, had booked one harvester from Respondent no.2/OP no.3 and the Respondent no.1/Complainant had paid Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only in four instalments, whereas the price of their harvester was fixed at Rs.18,50,000/- (Rupees eighteen lakhs fifty thousand) only and it was settled that the Respondent no.1/Complainant, would pay a sum of Rs.8,20,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs twenty thousand) only,  before delivery of the same. But he failed to deposit the same within the stipulated time. The Respondent no.1/Complainant had paid Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only, to the Appellant and the Appellant had deposited the same to the Appellant no.2/OP no.2, but thereafter the Respondent no.1/Complainant refused to pay the settled amount of Rs.8,20,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs twenty thousand) only   and wanted back the amount of Rs.1,80,000/- (Rupees one lakh eighty thousand) only by putting pressure on the salesman. The Respondent no.1/Complainant, confined the retired salesman and obtained his signature on some blank papers showing that the Respondent no.1/Complainant had paid Rs.4,90,000/- (Rupees four lakhs ninety thousand) only. They have therefore prayed for dismissal of the case.

After going through the evidence on record and hearing the parties the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur passed the impugned order directing the Appellant to pay Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only within 60 (sixty) days from the date of the impugned order.

Being aggrieved by the impugned order the Appellant preferred this instant appeal mainly on the ground that the Ld. Forum below had deprived the Appellant an opportunity to provide evidence in support of the Appellant’s case.

                                                           Decisions with Reasons

Ld. Advocate at the time of final hearing, had submitted and pointed out to the Confonet copy of the order sheet passed by the Ld. Forum below on 05/11/2015 which date was fixed for filing of Questionnaires, by the Appellant but the prayer had been rejected and the case had been fixed straightway, on 18/11/2015 for argument, without providing an opportunity to the Appellant for producing evidence in support of their contention.

The Respondent no.1/Complainant is present in person and he had prayed that the matter may be disposed of in his favour.

None appeared on behalf of the Respondent no. 2 and the appeal was heard ex-parte.

After hearing the parties and ongoing through the materials on record, it transpires that the Appellants have a specific case as opposed to the Respondent/Complainant’s case. Under the circumstance, when the Complainant’s evidence had just been closed on the previous date i.e., on 15/10/2015 and when an adjournment had been prayed, the same had been rejected and an opportunity should have been provided to the Appellant, for adducing evidence in support of their contention, but the Ld. Forum without providing any reason had fixed 18/11/2015 for argument straightway. Under the circumstance, the principles of natural justice appeared to have been violated and the impugned order cannot be sustained without providing an opportunity to the Appellants to produce evidence in support of their contention. As a result, the instant appeal succeeds.

It is therefore,

                                                        ORDERED

That the instant appeal be and the same is allowed on contest but without cost.

The impugned order is hereby set aside with the direction to dispose of the case by providing an opportunity to the Appellant to produce evidence and dispose of the case by a fresh judgement after considering the new evidence, if any, to be produced by the Appellant, without unnecessary delay.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost.

Copy of the order be sent to the Ld. DCDRF, Dakshin Dinajpur for necessary action.

Statutory deposit be returned from whom received.

Jt. Registrar, Siliguri Circuit Bench of WBSCDRC to do the needful.