Orissa

Cuttak

CC/244/2022

Sabana Sultana,Propriertor of Arman Agency - Complainant(s)

Versus

Mr Matloob, Propriertor,M M Texttiles - Opp.Party(s)

Namita Pattnaik & associates

05 Sep 2023

ORDER

            IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

C.C.No.244/2022

 

Sabana Sultana,

W/o: Syed Rehan Ali,Proprieteor of

Arman Agency,Resident of

At:Saidani Bagicha,Tulasipur,

                              P.S: Lalbag,Dist:Cuttack

 

                                                Vrs.

1.  Mr. Matloob,Proprietor of                                                                                                                                                             M.M.Textile,Moh-poura Rani(Ner Madrasa Iteajazia),                                                                                                                  Mubarakpur,Dist-Azamgarh                                                                                                                                                               State: Uttar Pradesh.

 

2. Shakilur Rahman(Sakil),                                                                                                                                                                            S/o: Atiur Rahman,At:Saidani Bagicha,                                                                                                                                                     Tulasipur,P.S: Lalbag,Dist-Cuttack.                                                 ...Opp. Parties

 

Present:           Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                    Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

 

               Date of filing:     06.12.2022

Date of Order:     05.09.2023

 

For the complainant:            Namita Pattnaik,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps.                 :          None.

 

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.   

          Case of the complainant is short is that she has opened saree a shop in the name and style as “Arman Agency” for the purpose of her livelihood by way of self-employment.  It is further case of the complainant is that the O.P no.1 is the Proprietor of M.M.Textile, who deals with sarees and the O.P no.2 is his agent.  It is alleged by the complainant that on 20.9.2022, she had purchased sarees worth of Rs.1,13,355/- from the O.P no.1 through O.P no.2 and she had handed over the consideration money by way of post dated cheque amounting to Rs.1,13,355/-.  It is stated by the complainant that when she opened the packet of the saree on the same day i.e. on 20.9.2022,  she found that most of the sarees are damaged, which are not in sellable condition.   Thereafter, the complainant intimated such fact to the O.Ps and requested them to exchange the said sarees but the O.Ps did not exchange those sarees but presented his cheque in the bank for encashment of the same.  The complainant knowing about the malafide intention of the O.P no.1 had requested the bank to stop payment of the cheque amount for which her bank stopped the payment of the said cheque amount.  It is further alleged by the complainant that as the O.Ps neither exchanged the defective sarees nor returned the postdated cheque to her, she issued a legal notice to the O.P no.1 on 28.10.2022.  But the O.P No.1 after receiving such legal notice threatened her by way of legal notice dated 1.11.2022 to initiate criminal case U/S-138 of NI Act against her as she stopped the payment of cheque amount.  It is alleged by the complainant that the O.P no.1 with malafide intention to grab her money had sent such notice to her.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case as the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice by not exchanging the defective sarees as well as by not returning the cheque issued by her in favour of O.P no.1.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to refund her Rs.1,13,355/-taken  towards the cost of the defective sarees and pay compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest @ 12% per annum towards mental agony and harassment as well as pay a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards cost of her litigation.

          In order to prove her case, the complainant has filed copies of some documents alongwith her complaint petition.

2.       The O.Ps have neither appeared nor contested the case, hence they were set exparte.

3.       The points for determination in this case are as follows:

i.          Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

ii.         Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps and if  the O.Ps have practised any unfair trade?

iii.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by her?

Point no.ii.

 Out of the three points, point no.ii  being the pertinent one, is taken up  first for consideration here in this case.

The complainant claimed to have purchased sarees from O.P no.1 through the O.P no.2 and handed over postdated cheque amounting to Rs.1,13,355/- to the O.P no.1 through O.P no.2.  The complainant has not produced any evidence to the effect that she had placed order for purchasing sarees or sarees of likely amount from the O.P no.1 through the O.P no.2.  She also has not produced any evidence to the effect that she had handed over the cheque amounting to Rs.1,13,355/- to the O.P no.1 through O.P no.2.  Hence, it cannot be said that the complainant had purchased the sarees from O.P no.1 through O.P no.2. The complainant has also not filed any cogent evidence to the effect that the purchased sarees are of defective in nature.    The complainant herself has stated that she has stopped payment of the cheque issued in favour of the O.P no.1 as such question of refund of that amount does not arise.  The complainant could not prove her case by adducing sufficient documentary evidence.   Hence, it cannot be said that the O.Ps have committed  deficiency of service or they have practised any unfair trade.  Hence, this point goes against the complainant.

Point no.1 & iii.

From the discussions as made above, the case of the complainant is not maintainable and she is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed by her.

 

                                              ORDER

Case is dismissed on contest against the O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 5^th day of September,2023 under the seal and signature of this Commission.  

                                                                                                                                                                                            

                                                                                 

                                                                                             Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                       Member

                           Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                            President