DATE OF FILING : 21-07-2014.
DATE OF S/R : 25-08-2014.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 29-04-2015.
Sri Utpal Sen,
son of Shri Uday Chand Sen,
proprietor of M/s. Radharani Enterprise,
of village and P.O. Rol, P.S. Indas,
District Bankura,
PIN 722205. ……………………………………………………….COMPLAINANT.
Versus -
Mr. AnirudhSrivastav,
partner of Bikaner Food Products
of 405, G.T. Road, P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711103.
- M/s. Bikaner Food Products
of 405, G.T. Road, P.S. Shibpur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711103.
- Mr. Arnab Sen,
salesman of M/s. Bikaner Food Product
of village Masdanga, P.O. Kaigram, P.S. Manteswar,
District Burdwan,
PIN 713145. …………………………………………….….OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Member In Charge : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Member : Shri Subrata Sarker.
F I N A L O R D E R
The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has prayed for direction upon the o.ps. to refund 1,88,000, to pay Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation, costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
The brief facts of the case is that the complainant in order to maintain his livelihood entered into an agreement dated 24.11.2013 with the o.ps. As per the agreement complainant deposited Rs. 1,88,000/- on 04.12.2013 to o.p. no. 1, who duly accepted and acknowledged the payment by issuing acceptance letter. The o.ps. delivered various items amounting to Rs. 1,25,466.50 together with 5% VAT and issued a bill for Rs. 1,31,739.83 vide Invoice No. 1 dated 09.01.2014. During such delivery, complainant noticed that the goods, the food products, were shortage in quantity as per invoice and some items were damaged and outdated. So he refused to take delivery but delivery man of the company did not cooperate with him. Moreover, it is alleged by the complainant that o.ps. charged the retail price and not the wholesale price for the goods delivered and thereby they violated the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 24.11.2013. So complainant visited the office of the o.ps. and reported that matter. The o.ps. suggested him to sell out the damaged goods instead of replacement. After receiving complaints from various distributors, complainant went to the office of the o.ps. and described the entire facts. But the o.ps. did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant. Being frustrated complainant sent a letter dated 13.5.2014 through registered post with A/D to the o.ps. claiming Rs. 6,88,000/-, out of which Rs. 1,88,000/- was paid by the complainant and Rs. 5,00,000/- as compensation. In reply to the said letter o.ps. sent an advocate’s letter wherein refund of the deposited amount of Rs. 1,88,000/- was not entertained. Finding no other alternative complainant filed this complaint with the aforesaid prayers. Hence the case.
3. Notices were served. O.ps. appeared and filed written version and B.N.A. Accordingly the case was heard on contest against the o.ps.
4. Upon pleadings of parties two points arose for determination :
Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.?
Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. Both the points are taken up together for consideration. We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint and its annexures and noted its contents. The o.ps. filed written version and B.N.A. On scrutiny of the papers it is found that an agreement was made between the complainant and the o.ps. The complainant deposited Rs. 1,88,000/- to the o.ps. for delivery of various items at wholesale price. The o.ps. delivered some items amounting to Rs. 1,25,466.50 together with 5% VAT and issued a bill for Rs. 1,31,739.83 vide Invoice No. 1 dated 09.01.2014 charging retail price for the said goods. It is to be kept in mind that the said goods were even returned from different corners to the complainant as the goods were outdated and tampered. It was even informed to the o.ps. i.e., o.p. nos. 1 & 2 still they remained silent without doing any needful. Complainant is totally dependent on this job to earn his livelihood. The overall attitude of o.ps. is nothing but harassing which certainly caused severe mental agony, physical harassment and financial loss to the complainant. O.Ps. should have remembered that the success of their business ultimately depends upon the customer satisfaction. And the goods, which were delivered to the complainant, are meant for the ultimate customer, means the people at large. The supply of outdated and tampered food items to the consumers is highly arbitrary and illegal. But here in this case the o.ps. have adopted unfair trade practice followed by deficiency in service on their part which should not be allowed to be perpetuated for an indefinite period. The o.p. no. 3 is the mere agent of the o.p. nos. 1 & 2. So we are of the candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant should be allowed against o.p. nos. 1 & 2. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 403 of 2014 ( HDF 403 of 2014 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs against the O.P. nos. 1 & 2 and dismissed against o.p. no. 3.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 be jointly and severally directed to refund Rs. 1,88,000/- to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., 9% interest shall be imposed till actual payment and the complainant is also directed to return the goods in question on receipt of such amount.
The O.P. nos. 1 & 2 are further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 18,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., 9% interest shall be imposed till actual payment.
The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Subrata Sarker )
Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.
