Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member
Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with the alleged deviation from the terms and conditions of the ‘agreement’, by the OP as mentioned above in the matter of the proposed installation of an elevator in the G+4 multistoried building claimed to have been constructed by the complainant proprietorship concern, the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019. The Complainant has pointed out in her petition that her only source of earning her livelihood is the concern under the trade name of M/S M.M. Civil Construction
Firstly, it should be mentioned here before proceeding in the matter of disposal of this case, that the case runs ex parte against the sole OP, as, in spite of proper service of notice, the OP preferred to give a cold shoulder towards the proceedings of the case. Thus the Commission decided to proceed ex parte against the sole OP who is actually a private Limited concern.
Brief facts of the case:-
Reportedly the complainant being the proprietress of M/S M & M Civil Construction entered into an ‘agreement’ with the OP for installation of lift in the multistoried building constructed by her concern. The estimated cost of supply, installation, testing and commissioning of the said lift was Rs.5,74,750/- which was inclusive of GST.
The complainant claims to have made a payment of Rs.4,00,000/- through chequeson different dates in the years 2018, 2021 and 2022.
In spite of making the payments, repeated reminders and requests, the OP did not take any initiative in the matter of installation of the lift.
The Complainant claims that as per agreement it was agreed between the parties that 3rd installment of 40% was to be paid against supply of materials at the site and last installment of 10% against commissioning of the lift. But allegedly no materials were supplied at the particular site.
On 04.08.2022 a legal notice was sent by the Complainant to the OP. But the same yielded no result.
Considering all these developments as sheer deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the petitioner approaches to this Commission with a prayer to impose direction upon the OP either to install and commission the lift at the particular site or to make refund of the amount of Rs.4,00,000/- with interest @18% for applicable period, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- for causing mental pain, agony, anxiety and harassment, to pay further Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation, to pay Rs.50,000/-towards litigation cost and any other relief or reliefs which the Complainant is entitled to get as per law.
The Complainant, to corroborate her claim has annexed copies of certain documents viz. purported agreement with the OP, relevant money receipts and the legal notice sent to the OP.
Evidence on affidavit and brief notes of argument are almost replicas of the Complaint petition.
However the Complainant on 29.09.2023 filed an application for conducting local inspection of the suit property and considering the prayer the same was approved.
Subsequently the Commission report was filed by the Ld. Commissioner on 23.11.2023.
Argument of the Complainant was heard in full on 03.01.2024.
The Complainant’s declared place of business is within the district of Hooghly.
The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.50,00,000/-
Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.
Whether there was any deficiency of service on the OP’s part and whether the Complainant is entitled to any relief are taken together as the issues are mutually interrelated.
Decision with reason
Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, evidence on affidavit, annexed documents, brief notes of argument filed by the complainant and the Commission report are perused.
Now so far as the adjudication of the case is concerned the key document which is to be focused on, is the purported agreement between the parties.
Five sheets of papers which is claimed to be an ‘agreement’ is far from being an agreement in the legal sense of the term.
On meticulous scrutiny of these papers it transpires that
- The first page is actually a Technical Specification sheet signed by none.
- Second page contains the price structure which is signed by the OP on one hand and some ‘Director’ of ‘M N Civil Constructions Pvt. Ltd.’ Here the signature is obviously not of the complainant of this case i.e. Smt. Mahua Roy, ‘Proprietress’ of ‘M &M Civil Construction’.
- Third page also contains certain technical details which are not signed by anyone.
- Fourth page also contains certain technical details and certain clarifications involving supply and installation, payment terms and conditions, force Majeure conditions, arbitration and cancellation of order and storage. This page also is signed by none.
- Fifth page also contains certain technical details and this sheet is also signed by the Director, M N Civil Constructions Pvt. Ltd. for the so called complainant side. Here also the signature is not of Smt. Mahua Roy the actual complainant.
In view of the above it is apparent that even if there was a deal in the matter of installation of a lift, the party who placed the order with the OP is M N Civil Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and not M & M Civil Construction, a proprietorship concern.
In view of the above the Commission is of the view that the Commission has been grossly misled and the very veracity of the Complaint petition is grossly questionable.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
the complaint case No.CC/40/2023 be and the same stands dismissed ex parte.
However there is no order as to costs.
Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.
