DATE OF FILING : 21.05.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 14.10.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 19.02.2016.
Prasanta Khaddar,
s/o, Sri Ajay Kumar Khaddar,
by faith Hindu, by occupation L.I.C Agent,
resident of Vill Antilapara, P.O Anantapur,
P.S Shyampur,
Dist.Howrah, PIN 711 301……………..………..…………….. COMPLAINANT.
Pintu Manna,
s/o, Late PrasadRanjan Manna,
by faith Hindu, by occupation Business,
of vill @ p.o Dakshin Durgapur,
P.S Shyampur,
Dist. Howrah. 711 301………………………..……………..OPPOSITE PARTIES.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- Complainant, namely, Prasanta Khaddar, by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C. P. Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund Rs. 2,50,000 , so paid by him to o.p for purchasing bricks , to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs along with other relief or reliefs as the Forum may deem fit and proper.
- It is the specific grievance of the complainant that even after receiving an amount of Rs. 2,50,000/- vide Annexures money receipt dt.09/05/2013@ 29/05/2013 for supply of 50,000 bricks, o.p failed to supply the same till date. Complainant repeatedly requested o.p to supply the same so as to enable him to construct his personal building, o.p paid no heed to his request rather treated him with filthy language. Even after passing away the long period the o.ps. did not care to supply the bricks to the complainant. Complainant paid the entire amount to o.p. But even after taking such a big amount from the complainant, o.p did care to discharge his boundant duty towards the complainant. Being frustrated and finding no other alternative complainant filed this instant case with the aforesaid prayers.
- Notice was served. The o.p. appeared and filed written version. Accordingly, the case was heard on contest against the o.p.
- 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.. We have carefully gone through the w/v along with documents filed by the o.p and noted their contents. On perusal of the money receipt duly issued by o.p. on 09/05/2013, it is clear that complainant has already paid Rs 2,50,000/- to the o.p. towards the total consideration amount towards the purchase price of 50,000 bricks for his personal building, thereby complainant has become a consumer of o.p and o.p failed to supply the same to the complainant till date which is nothing but gross deficiency in service on the part of O.P. The total payment has been made by the complainant but he could not get the benefit of the payment due to o.p’s negligence in discharging his duty towards the complainant which should not be allowed to be perpetuated anymore. So we are of candid opinion that it is a fit case where the prayers of the complainant shall be allowed. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 196 of 2015 ( HDF 196s of 2015 ) be allowed on contest with costs against the O.P.
That the O.P. is directed to return Rs. 2,50,000 to the complainant within one month from this order .
The complainant do get an award of Rs. 20,000/- as compensation toward mental agony and harassment and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs and the o.p. is directed to pay the entire awarded amount being Rs.2,75,000 within 30 days from the date of this order i.d., 8% p.a. interest shall be charged on the same till actual payment.
The complainant is 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.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( Jhumki Saha)
Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
