DATE OF FILING                    :           13-02-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :         14-03-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :           29-04-2013. 

Bimal Kumar Ghosh,

102/1, Bireswar Chatterjee Street, Bally,

District –Howrah,

PIN – 711201.-------------------------------------------------------------------- COMPLAINANT.

Versus   -

Palash Bhattacharya,

Proprietor,

M/s. Reliable Services,

55/1, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane,

Howrah – 711101.-------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

Complainant, Sri Bimal Kumar Ghosh, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C.P.

Act, 1986 has prayed for a direction to be given upon the O.P., M/S. Reliable Services represented by its propreitor, Sri Palash Bhattacharya, to refund Rs. 1,400/- paid towards A.M.C. for two years for Auto Clean Chimney and Rs. 1,500/- paid towards service contract charge for one year for ‘RO’ water purifier machine along with interest @ 12% being  Rs. 448/- and Rs. 285/- respectively from 18-05-2010 to 17-05-2012 and 05-06-2011 to 04-06-2012 respectively to pay Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for causing severe mental agony, harassment etc.

Brief fact of the case is that complainant entered into an agreement towards

annual maintenance of his digital water purifier machine with M/S Shriram Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. on payment of Rs. 3,080/- for four hours on 04-10-2007 starting from 03-12-2007 to 02-12-2011 vide annexure xerox copy of that contract. In that contract, the names of O.P. company and its proprietor, namely Palash Bhattacharya were provided as the authorized service provider of M/S Usha Shriram vide annexure xerox copy of the visiting card of the said authorized service agent. As his old machine was not properly purifying the drinking water, on being convinced by the O.P. Palash Bhattacharya, he purchased one ‘RO’ water purifier on payment of Rs. 7,500/- and in exchange of the old water purifier on 12-06-2009 vide annexure invoice cum receipt dated 12-06-2009. And on being persuaded by the said Mr. Bhattacharya, complainant entered into another service contract with O.P.

for O.P. the new machine on payment of Rs. 1,500/- for one year starting from 05-06-2011. It is further stated by the complainant that as he bought one oil collector Hindware Auto Clean kitchen chimney from O.P., he made another contract with the O.P. for its annual maintenance on 03-05-2010 for two years starting from 18-05-2010 to 17-05-2012 vide annexure copy of annual maintenance contract dated 02-05-2010 on payment of Rs. 1,400/-. But it is very unfortunate that in spite of receiving all maintenance charges O.P. did not provide any service in terms of the contracts and it is even alleged by the complainant that O.P. is not receiving his phone calls. Ultimately, complainant lodged written complaint with the Assistant Director, Howrah Regional Office, Deptt. of  C.A. & F.B.P. vide annexure letter dated 06-01-2011 received on 06-01-2012 and there was meeting for amicable settlement on 25-01-2012. Even after that as per the decision of  that meeting, nobody from O.P. company attended his water purifier and it was also brought to the notice of the said authority on 30-01-2012 vide annexure letter dated 30-01-2012. Thereafter complainant who is senior citizen went to Mumbai for his treatment and finally he could file this instant petition before this Forum on 13-02-2013  praying for aforesaid relief.

Notice was  served upon O.P. and O.P. appeared through his advocate on 03-

04-2013 who also prayed for an opportunity for amicable settlement which was granted by this Forum.  But thereafter till 03-04-2013 nobody turned up neither any written version was filed by O.P. . Accordingly, the case was  heard ex parte.

Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. From complaint /

petition, affidavit and documents filed by the complainant there is no doubt about it that O.P. neglected his part of duty towards the complainant with all unfairness. The purification of drinking water is a matter which is to be given utmost importance. We are quite sure that O.P. could not realize the very spirit of the service which he undertook to provide in terms of the contracts. It is also beyond any doubt that O.P. has nothing to submit in his favour otherwise when once he appeared, he would have definitely filed written version. So, there is nothing to disbelieve the unchallenged testimony of the complainant. By way of adopting unfair means, O.P. has harassed the complainant beyond any explanation, which should not be allowed to be perpetuated. Accordingly, case succeeds on merit with costs against O.P.

                Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

                That the C. C. Case No. 38 of 2013 ( HDF 38  of 2013 )  be  allowed ex parte  with  costs  against  the O.P. 

                The O.P. is  directed to  refund Rs. 2,900/- ( Rs. 1,400 + Rs. 1,500 ) to the complainant within one month from the date of this order. The complainant do get an award of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and Rs. 500/- as litigation cost. The O.P. is directed to pay the total awarded amount of Rs. 4,400/- within one month from this order i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% p.a. till actual payment.

                                The complainants are 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.