This appeal is directed against the Final Order dated 01.11.2017 in CC No 53 of 2017 delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Jalpaiguri. The fact of the case in nutshell is that the Appellant/Complainant Dr. Vidhan Chandra Roy registered a Consumer Complaint to the effect that on 23.11.2016 he visited the showroom of O.P No. 1 Mr. Niraj Bhardwaz Styled as Niraj Tiles and Marvel at Siliguri and booked best quotation of different items including Vistajacuzzi, Bath Tub of Oyster and paid Rs. 50,000/- as advance in cash for delivery of items including Vistajacuzzi Bath Tub of Oyster which was stored in the godown of the O.P. Subsequently, the Complainant realized that since the quotation was disproportionately high and therefore, he had decided not to buy the said items and thereafter the Complainant requested the Opposite Party over the telephone to supply the commode which was available in his showroom. The Complainant in several occasions after paying the said advance money of Rs. 50,000/- asked the O.P to supply him the items for which he proposed to purchase but the said items could not be delivered on the part of the Opposite Party. So, he cancelled the quotation and asked the Opposite Party No. 1 to return back his 50,000/- which the O.P has received from him as advance but the Opposite Party did not pay any heed in paying back the advance of Rs. 50,000/-. So, he registered the instant Consumer Complaint. The Complaint was placed for admission hearing before the Ld. Forum and Ld. Forum on the date of admission hearing on 01.11.2017 came into a conclusion that from the documents annexed with the Consumer Complaint there was no single document in support of the case of the Complainant that he had paid Rs. 50,000/- as advance money and for that reason the case was dismissed for non-maintainability. Being aggrieved with this order this appeal follows on the ground that the order of Ld. Forum suffers from various mistakes and not vested in law. The appeal was registered in due course and notice was sent to the address of the respondent. The respondent has received the notice in due course and notice was sent to O.P/Respondent. But he never came to contest the appeal. This appeal was actually registered before the Hon’ble State Commission of Calcutta Bench and thereafter the case was reassigned here. After reassignment the appellant recorded his presence but the respondent never came to this Bench after reassignment and for that reason the appellant was further directed to send further notice to the respondent to become him aware about the existence of this appeal in this Bench. But in spite of that the respondent never came to this Bench to contest the appeal. So, the appeal was heard Ex-parte against the respondent. On behalf of the appellant Ld. Advocate Mr. Rabbani has conducted the hearing.

Decision with reasons

Having heard the Ld. Advocate of the Appellant it transfers to us the Complainant as a medical practitioner intended to purchase some house hold items from the respondent company and for that reason visited the showroom of the respondent company on 23.11.2016 where he after collection the quotation paid Rs. 50,000/- as advance for the items including Vistajacuzzi Bath Tub of Oyster but the Opposite Party could not deliver the said item to the appellant and on several occasions the Complainant and his man came to the showroom of the respondent for delivery of such item. But the Opposite Party could not deliver the said item. So, the Complainant/Appellant was compelled to cancel the said dealing and wanted to get return of the advance money of Rs. 50,000/- which was utterly refused to return back on the part of the O.P/Respondent and for that reason he registered the Consumer Complaint. At the time of Consumer Complaint, the Complainant relied upon some documents that is the quotation, voucher, email copy etc. Ld. Forum on going through all these came into a conclusion that the Complainant was failed to prove that he actually passed Rs. 50,000/- as advance for purchasing the items from O.P No. 1 and for that reason the Consumer Complaint was not admissible. Now, the question is whether such observation in the Judgement of the Ld. Forum was full of error or not.

We know very well that Consumer Protection Act came into force since 1986 in order to protect the interest of the bonafide consumers so that their money for purchasing something should not be unnecessarily drained out in the hands of dishonest sellers. On the other hand, if any consumer comes to the Forum with an approach to get some reliefs for inhumane attitude or unfair trade practice on the part of the seller, the said consumer has to prove his bonafidy at first and to prove that he actually purchased the said valuable property by paying some price or consideration money or any value in lieu of consideration. Ld. Advocate at the time of hearing appeal pointed out that the email address to the Complainant on the part of respondent was furnished before the Ld. Forum at the time of registration of the Consumer Complaint but Ld. Forum did not put any reliance upon the said email. During the course of hearing the Ld. Advocate further says that actually the Complainant/Appellant had visited the showroom of the O.P in order to purchase some house hold items including the Bath Tub. Some items which were supposed to supply was mismatched with the quotation and inflated higher rates was detected and for that reason the Complainant was not in a position to purchase some materials from the said showroom and he only wanted to adjust said advance money of Rs. 50,000/- for getting the Jacuzzi Bath Tub which was not agreed upon on the part of the O.P and so this dispute was cropped up. After going through the email very carefully it is established beyond any doubt that on the part of the Complainant Rs. 50,000/- was paid in advance on 23.11.2016 and it has not denied on the part of the respondent/O.P in the email. So, a prima-facie case is there. Whether, this Consumer Complaint should be succeeded or not it will be determined after recording the evidences and after hearing both sides. But in the initial stage particularly on the date of admission stage there is no scope to go into the merit of the case. Only prima-facie case to be detected to hold whether the instant dispute was a Consumer dispute or not. Here, in this case it is very much clear that this dispute is related to a bonafide consumer and for that reason the Complainant as consumer should get an opportunity to ventilate the grievances in a rightful manner and Ld. Forum has adjudicated the dispute very hurriedly without consulting the spirit of the provisions of Consumer Protection Act. So, this Commission thinks it fit to interfere with the order so that the Complainant can get proper justice in a rightful manner.

Hence, it’s ordered

That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on merit without any cost. The Final Order delivered by Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Jalpaiguri dated 01.11.2017 in CC No 53 of 2017 is hereby set aside. To save the time and convenience the instant Consumer Complaint is hereby admitted on merit. The Ld. Forum is requested to issue notice upon the Opposite Party/Respondent with a direction upon him to have a W.V. If, intended to contest the Consumer dispute and after obtaining W.V Ld. Forum shall adjudicate the dispute as per provisions of law and if the Respondent/O.P does not file the W.V in due time the matter to be heard Ex-parte on satisfaction that the Opposite Party/Respondent received the notice of Consumer Complaint in due course.

Let a copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost and the matter to be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F., Jalpaiguri for doing the necessary action.