Present (1) Nisha Nath Ojha,
District & Sessions Judge (Retd.) President
(2) Smt. Karishma Mandal,
Member
Date of Order : 30.05.2018
Nisha Nath Ojha
- In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-
- To direct the opposite parties to refund Rs. 40,000/- along with Rs. 4,000/- cost of transportation as well as compensation and litigation costs.
- The facts of this case lies in a narrow compass which is as follows:-
The complainant is the Secretary of Nupur Tejasvi foundation which is a non Government foundation registered under the Society registration Act.
It is the case of the complainant that a fare was organized from 03.01.2013 to 02.02.2013 at Patliputra ground, Patna. Before the said fare, opposite party met with the applicant at veterinarycollage maidan at Patna and requested the complainant for purchasing some articles which price were quoted by the opposite party. Opposite party also presented demo of the aforesaid articles and thereafter the complainant total paid Rs. 40,000/- for delivery of the article which price have been quoted in annexure – 1 series. The Rs. 20,000/- were transferred in the account bearing no. 911020038081425 of Kalita Enterprises on 14.11.2012 and another Rs. 20,000/- were transferred in the same account on 19/20.11.2012. The entire amount was deposited in Axis Bank, Kankarbagh, Patna Branch in cash.
Complainant has further asserted that thereafter the opposite party delivered the entire article to the applicant for which builty was sent through DTDC courier. When the verified article delivered to the complainant on 03.12.2012 were the complainant was shocked to see that entire article were of inferior nature and some of which were damaged. The complainant immediately informed the opposite party about the condition of the article and requested them to take back entire inferior article. Complainant waited for some time and when no response was received from opposite party then complainant visited the opposite party at Nalbari with some sample of inferior damaged article but the opposite parties all of sudden started abusing and threatened her to return. Thereafter the complainant sent a legal notice vide annexure – 2 but the grievance of the complainant was not redressed by the opposite parties.
It appears from the record that notices sent to the opposite parties were refused by the opposite parties as appeared from the endorsement of Postman on the envelope in which the notices were sent and as such the notice were declared valid vide order dated 04.02.2016 and when the opposite parties did not appeared even after allowing sufficient time then this case was heard ex – parte.
The fact mentioned in the aforesaid paragraphs have been asserted by the complainant on oath. There is no counter version of the aforesaid fact asserted by the complainant in her complaint. Hence, we have no occasion to disbelieve the statement of the complainant on oath which clearly disclose deficiency on the part of opposite parties.
Hence, we direct the opposite parties to pay Rs. 40,000/- ( Rs. Forty Thousand only ) to the complainant (i.e. price of articles vide annexure – 1) within the period of one month from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which opposite parties will pay 10% interest on above said price of Rs. 40,000/- ( Rs. Forty Thousand only ) till its final payment.
Opposite parties are further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- ( Rs. Twenty Thousand only ) to the complainant by way of compensation and litigation costs within the period of one month.
Accordingly this complaint stands allowed to the extent referred above.
Member (F) President
