In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No. 95 / 2008.
1) Sri Sukdev Mustafi,
109, Swinho Lane, Kolkata-700042. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) Piramal Healthcare Ltd.
Nicholas Primal Tower, Peninsula Corporate Bank,
Ganapat Rao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai-400013.
2) Shyam Shakti Vyapaar Private Limited, Piramal Healthcare Ltd.,
48, Taratala Road, Kolkata-700028.
3) Arijit Chatterjee, Piramal Healthcare Ltd.,
C & F, Shyam Shakti Vyapaar Private Limited,
48, Taratala Road, Kolkata-700028.
4) Partha Mustafi, Prop. Of Medico Distributor,
52, S.V. Sarani, P.O. & P.S. Ranaghat, Nadia.
5) Manager, Allahabad Bank,
Nasra Branch, P.O. & P.S. Ranaghat, Nadia. ---------- Opposite Parties
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Dr. Subir Kumar Chaudhuri, Member.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 41 Dated 30/08/2012.
The instant case has been filed by the complainant against the o.p.s with an allegation of deficiency in service which is within the scope and ambit of the C.P.Act,1986.
In a nut-shell, the case of the complainant is that he carried on business as a dealer of medicine and he ran his business for self employment only for his livelihood. The company of the complainant was dealer of o.p.1.The o.p.2 was the clearing and forwarding agent of the o.p.1 and o.p.3 was the Customer Service Manager, who engaged to deal with the customers i.e. Distributors within the territory of the State.
The complainant also stated that in the year 1980 he started a business of Distributor of Medicines, with one of his brothers, namely Sri Gopal Mustafi, by virtue of a Registered Partnership Deed.But in the year 2001, the partnership was dissolved between complainant and Gopal Mustafi by executing a Registered Deed Of Dissolution of Partnership and upon such dissolution, he himself was carrying on business. On 23.08.05, a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs.1,90,263/- was sent in favour of the o.p.1 through the o.p.3 for the purpose of supplying of medicine. But, due to some problem in the business, the complainant on or about 24.08.05. issued a letter in favour of the o.p.3 with a request to stop the consignment and the letter was duly acknowledged by the o.p.3. Thereafter, the complainant time and again demanded statement of account in respect of the business transaction with o.p.1 for the period of accounting year 2005 and 2006 and also for returning the amount covered under the demand Draft amounting to Rs.1,90,263/-, which is lying with the o.p.1. Hence, the complainant has no alternative but to file the instant case before this Forum and prayed for relief as mentioned in the complainant petition.
O.ps had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case.
Decision with reasons:
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It is an admitted position that the complainant on or about 24.08.05. issued a letter to o.p.3 with a request to stop the consignment and it is further admitted position that op3 duly acknowledged the said letter. Further case of the complainant is that complainant several times demanded statement of account in respect of the business transaction with o.p.1 for the period of accounting year 2005 and 2006 and also for returning the amount drawn in the demand Draft amounting to Rs.1,90,263/-, which is lying with the o.p.1.But all efforts of the complainant proved futile.
In view of the above findings and on perusal of the entire materials on record we have no hesitation to hold that this Forum has obviously has the power to adjudicate the instant case to determine whether there is any deficiency or negligence on the part of the ops and whether the complainant would liable to be compensated or not. Moreover, it is observed by this Forum that ops had sufficient deficiencies except o.p.4, being a service provider to its consumer/complainant and complainant is entitled to relief.
Hence, ordered
The case is allowed on contest against all ops with cost except o.p.4 and no order is passed against o.p.4. o.p.s are jointly and/or severally except o.p.4 directed to make payment of Rs.1,90,263/- to the complainant along with an interest @9% till the date of realization and the same ops are further directed to pay Rs.15,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and harassment caused to the complainant due to the latches of the aforesaid ops. O.P.s are further directed to pay litigation cost of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. an interest @ 9% p.a. shall accrue over the entire sum due to the credit of the complainant till full realization.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost under Section 21(1) of Consumer Protection Regulation.
