DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA : AGARTALA

 

CASE NO:  CC-  96  of   2017

 

Mr. Amitabha Deb,

S/O- Late Ajit Kr. Deb,

Qtr. No. T/IV/B-101(Old), 

Lake View Quarters, College Tilla,

Agartala- 799004. West Tripura. .….…...Complainant.

 

       VERSUS      

 

      Mr. Ashok Roy Chowdhury,

Prop. North East Steel,

South Indranagar, Near Big Bridge,

Agartala- 799006, West Tripura. ............ Opposite Party.

 

 

 __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI A. PAL,

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

 DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

SRI U. DAS

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

C  O  U  N  S  E  L

 

For the Complainant : In person.   

 

For the O.Ps : Sri Rakhal Roy Dutta,

  Sri Pranab Sarkar,

  Sri Jana Bhowmik,

  Srio Biplabendu Roy,

  Advocates.

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:  21.11.2017.

 

J U D G M E N T

  This case arises on the petition filed by one Amitabha Deb U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. Petitioner's case in short is that on 05.09.16 he purchased 1609.2 kg TMT Bar from the shop of the O.P. on payment of Rs.75,782/- but later O.P. admitted that its actual price was Rs.73,757/-. So he agreed to refund Rs.2025/- on future purchase. Petitioner did not purchase any item and asked him for refund of the amount. But O.P. misbehaved with him and refused to pay the amount without checking the cash book. After checking cash book he admitted that Rs.2077/- was paid in excess of actual value but as it is a old matter so it can not be refunded. Due to misbehavior petitioner suffered mentally and prayed for compensation amounting to Rs.30,000/-.

2. O.P. appeared filed written statement denying the claim. He admitted about the purchase  and also admitted that he agreed to refund Rs.2025/-. But the wife of the complainant purchased other items from his shop. The price was Rs.27,102/- but she paid Rs.25,000/-. Remaining amount was not paid by her. So he on adjustment of earlier amount of the complainant can get back Rs.77/- from complainant. There was no deficiency of service by him.

3. On the basis of the contention raised by both the parties following points cropped for determination:

  (II)Whether the O.P. misbehaved with the petitioner and failed to refund the excess amount Rs.2025/- paid by him by the petitioner?

  (II) Whether petitioner is entitled to get compensation for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service by O.P.? 

4. Petitioner produced the voucher, request letter for refund of the amount addressed to the O.P., letter of postmaster regarding receipt of the letter, petitioner also appeared and his evidence was recorded.

5. O.P. on the other hand produced the application for submission of Accounts Statement of SBI, copy of Account Statement of SBI and also evidence of the O.P. 

6. On the basis of evidence of both side as produced before us we shall now determine the above points.

 Findings and decision:

7. The fact of purchase of TMT bar from the shop of the O.P., North East Steel is admitted. Petitioner stated that when he demanded the cash memo then O.P. issued the same showing the price Rs.73,756/- but earlier he paid Rs.75,781/-. So he demanded Rs.2025/- in excess. O.P. assured him to adjust it in future purchase. But when he demanded it after 4 months. O.P. misbehaved with him and refused to give back the amount. 

8. We have gone through the cash memo issued by North East Steel shop of the O.P. Both the cash memo issued in the name of Ashok Deb. For the same items 2 cash memos issued one cash memo for Rs.75,781/-. On the same article another cash memo issued for Rs.73,756/-. 

9. O.P. in his evidence and also written statement admitted that he sold out the TMT bar for Rs.75,781/- on bargaining cost of certain items was reduced and goods were sold out for Rs.73,756/-. The difference of cost was Rs.2025/- and he agreed to refund it on future transaction. So, the fact of excess payment of Rs.2025/- is admitted.  

10. Now the contention of the O.P. is that Sima Datta purchased some items from his shop on 01.4.17. i.e., after 7 months of the purchase by Amitabha Deb. O.P. stated that the price of that item was Rs.27,102/- but Sima Datta paid Rs.25,000/-. Rs.2025/- paid in excess by the petitioner was adjusted and O.P. was entitled to get Rs.77/- from Sima Datta. According to petitioner he demanded the refund after 4 months not after 7 months when the O.P. misbehaved and refused to refund the amount. Sima Datta who happened to be the wife of Amitabha Deb purchased some items on 01.04.17 and as per voucher given by O.P. its price was Rs.27,102/-. Petitioner stated that Rs.25,000/- was paid by cheque and rest amount paid by cash by his wife. It was paid to one Biswajit Das not to the O.P. The AC Block item was not owned or sold by O.P. at all. So this purchase can not be connected with the O.P. 

11. From scrutiny of the evidence of  both the sides it appears that O.P. did not pay the excess amount paid by the petitioner i.e., Rs.2025/-. Request of the petitioner was turned down.  Petitioner requested the O.P. in writing. No response was given by the O.P. O.P. tried to relate the transaction made by his wife, Sima Datta. Petitioner refused but admitted such transaction with the shop of O.P. Signature of the wife of Amitabha Deb, Seema Datta also not found in the voucher. So we can not connect this transaction with the transaction of petitioner. 

12. It is admitted and established fact that O.P. failed to pay Rs.2025/- excess amount paid by the petitioner even after 4 months when the petitioner demanded the refund. He also issued two cash memo for same item showing different price. O.P. misbehaved and payment not made. This is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. Petitioner is entitled to get compensation for it. We therefore, direct the O.P. to pay Rs.2025/- excess amount paid by the petitioner to O.P. We also direct O.P. to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the petitioner for this deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. In total O.P. is to pay Rs.7,025/- to the petitioner. No other cost is allowed. Both the points are decided accordingly.

13. In view of our above findings over the points we direct the O.P. to pay Rs.7,025/- (Rupees Seven Thousand Twenty Five) to the petitioner within 1(one) month. If not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A.   

 

 

 

Announced.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

SRI A. PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA