IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.

CASE No.  CC/63/2022.

 Date of Filing:                    Date of Admission:                        Date of Disposal:

     18.07.22                                      01.08.22                                      23.06.23

Complainant: SUJATA DHAR

W/O- SANJOY KUMAR HOWLADAR

44/15, Dr. SUNDAR GOPAL DHAR LANE P.O.-KHAGRA,

P.S-   ERHAMPORE,PIN-742103

                                                            -Vs-

Opposite Party: 1.PRATIVA COLLECTION Pvt Ltd ,

 Prop- TRIDIB CHOUDHURY

KUDGHAT WIRELESS PARK.

P.S- REGENT PARK, KOLKATA-700040

2.PRATIVA COLLECTION PVT LTD,

PROP- TRIDIB CHOUDHURY

15B/1, MOORE AVENUE ,NEAR WIRELESS PARK ,

P.S- REGENT PARK, KUDGHAT , KOLKATA-700040                 

Agent/Advocate for the Complainant                   : Bidishya Sarkar

Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Parties     : Debalina Roy Chowdhury.

Present:    Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.     

   Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member.                          

                                               FINAL ORDER

Sri.ajay kumar das, presiding member.

This is a complaint under section 35 of the CP Act, 2019.

          One Sujata Dhar (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Prativa Collection Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. (here in after referred to as the OPs) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.

 The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-

The Complainant is the Indian citizen by birth and residing at the above mentioned address.

The Ops is the authorized garment seller and having its shop as above mentioned address and under the name and style Prativa Collection Pvt. Ltd.

The Complainant on 05.06.22, while watching CTVN AKD plus channel, watched the live telecaste of Prativa Collection Pvt. Ltd. Sarees Collection.

The host of the channel showed so many collection of the sarees and expressed that if anybody wanted to collect any saree they could order the same through the phone number.

The Complainant after watching the collection,  selected a saree worth of Rs.6,000/- and Rs. 100/- for delivery charge.

The host of the channel provided all the banking details of the Ops. So that the customer whoever would purchase the saree, could easily give the order.

The Complainant after selecting the saree, placed the order of the saree worth of Rs. 6,000/- through whatsapp number and the amount was transferred through e-corner of SBI to the OP on 07.06.22.

After the transaction to the Ops of Rs. 6,000/- and delivery charge of Rs. 100/- all total Rs. 6,100/- for the saree,they received the said order and sent an whatsapp message at her whatsapp number.

The Ops after receiving the amount sent the said selected saree through DTDC Courier.

The Complainant received the saree on 11.06.22  through DTDC Courier.

When the Complainant received the saree, she was astonished to see that the saree was the different saree  which she had ordered. The saree which was shown in the TV had Zari work at par area. But the saree which she received was glitter work at par area.

When the saree was shown in the TV at that amount it was clearly told that the saree had zari work. But the Complainant received the totally different saree.

The glitter of the saree was coming out when the Complainant swiped her hand over the saree. The Complainant immediately contacted with the Ops and informed the matter but the OP didn’t pay any heed.

The Complainant called the Ops on several times but the OP didn’t pay any heed which clearly showed deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

The Complainant not getting any relief from the Ops filed this instant case for appropriate relief praying for directing the Ops to receive back the saree and to refund the amount to the Complainant and to direct the Ops to pay a sum of Rs. 3,000/- for cost and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for compensation and to pass such other order or orders as your honour would deem fit and proper. 

The sum and substance of the defence case is that:

          The OPs are contesting the case by filing written version contending inter alia that the Complainant has no cause of action, the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant case, the complaint is barred by law of limitation and the complaint is defective in nature. The complaint is hit by mis-joinder of parties. The Complainant is not a consumer. The instant suit is absolutely malafide, misconceived, motivated, speculative, baseless and harassing one.

          The OPs have specifically stated in para 11 of the W/V, ‘’ That save and except which has been specifiacally admitted in this W/V this OP denies all the statements and allegations made in the petition and puts the Complainant to the strict proof thereof. ‘’

          The OPs have stated in para 17 of the W/V, ‘’ that the statement made in the paragraphs No. 03,04,05,06 of the complaint is denied by the answering OPs and the answering OPs have no knowledge relating to these matters. The said Tridib Chowdhury is a government employee working under Indian Railways and the original director of the said company is a family friend of the said Tridib Choudhury who has no nexus with this private limited company in any manner whatsoever.

          The OPs have stated in para 18 of the W/V, ‘’ That the statement made in the paragraph No. 08&09 of the complaint are false and frivolous and the OP accepts that he received the said amount from the Complainant but the fact is that when the Complainant wants to transfer the purchased amount to ‘’Prativa Collections Pvt. Ltd..” But the Complainant refused to send the purchased amount to the companys HDFC bank account and asked for SBI account details. As the said company had no bank account in SBI Bank therefore the original director of the said company requested the said Tridib Chowdhury to provide his SBI account details because one of the director of the said company is the family friend of the Tridib Chowdhury. It is pertinenet to mention that after the purchased money was received by the Tridib Chowdhury, he transferred the said purchased amount i.e. Rs. 6,100/- to the said company's account. ‘’

On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following pointsare framed for proper  adjudication of the case :

Points for decision

1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?

2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?

3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?

Decision with Reasons:

Point No.1         

Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits at the time of argument that the Complainant is a consumer to the OPs. Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that they are appearing on behalf of Tridib Chowdhury. This Tridib Chowdhury has no nexus with the OPs. After hearing both sides, we peruse the materials on record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the Complainant is a consumer to the OPs. So this point is decided in favour of the Complainant.

Point Nos. 2&3

Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion. The point to be noted is that neither the Complainant nor the OPs adduced any evidence. Argument was heard on the basis of Complaint on affidavit and the W/V on affidavit.

 Ld. Advocate for the Complainant submits that the OPs are contesting this case by filing written version. She further states that the Complainant after selecting the saree, placed the order of the saree worth of Rs. 6,000/- through whatsapp number and the amount was transferred through e-corner of SBI to the OP on 07.06.22.

After the transaction to the Ops of Rs. 6,000/- and delivery charge of Rs. 100/- all total Rs. 6,100/- for the saree,they received the said order and sent an whatsapp message at her whatsapp number.

The Ops after receiving the amount sent the said selected saree through DTDC Courier.

The Complainant received the saree on 11.06.22  through DTDC Courier.

When the Complainant received the saree, she was astonished to see that the saree was the different saree  which she had ordered. The saree which was shown in the TV had Zari work at par area. But the saree which she received was glitter work at par area.

When the saree was shown in the TV at that amount it was clearly told that the saree had zari work. But the Complainant received the totally different saree.

The glitter of the saree was coming out when the Complainant swiped her hand over the saree. The Complainant immediately contacted with the Ops and informed the matter but the OP didn’t pay any heed.

The Complainant called the Ops on several times but the OP didn’t pay any heed which clearly showed deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

She further submits before this District Commission that the fact regarding deficiency of service on the part of the OPs are not denied by the OPs. On the contrary it is admitted by the OPs that they received the said amount from the Complainant. The Complainant has been able to establish her case. She prays for relief as prayed for.

Ld. Advocate for OPs submits that she is appearing on behalf of Tridib Chowdhury. This Tridib Chowdhury has no nexus with Prativa Collection Pvt. Ltd. Complainant sent Rs. 6,100/- to the account of Tridib Chowdhury and said Tridib Chowdhury sent the same amount ( Rs. 6,100/-) to the account of Prative Collection Pvt. Ltd. , and as such this Tridib Chowdhury is not liable for any deficiency of service on the part of Prativa Collection Pvt. Ltd. Ld. Advocate for the OPs further submits that the said Tridib Chowdhury is an employee of South Eastern Railway. Director of Prativa Collection Pvt. Ltd. is the family friend of said Tridib Chowdhury and as such said Tridib Chowdhury collected the sum of Rs. 6,100/- with the help of his bank account and thereafter said Tridib Chowdhury sent the same amount of money to Prativa Collection Pvt. Ltd.

After hearing both sides, we peruse the materials on record. From the written version we find that said Tridib Chowdhury filed the said Written verisons on behalf of the OPs. It is alleged by Tridib Chowdhury that he has no nexus with the OPs. If that be so, why Tridib Chowdhury is contesting the case in the name of OPs.

          Ld. Advocate for the OPs submits that Tridib Chowdhury has no nexus with the OPs but said Tridib Chowdhury has stated in para 11 of the written version, ‘’ That save and except which has been specifiacally admitted in this W/V this OP denies all the statements and allegations made in the petition and puts the Complainant to the strict proof thereof. ‘’ If Tridib Chowdhury has no nexus with the OPs then how he can defend the fact of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. The point to be noted is that said Tridib Chowdhury has not specifically denied the fact of deficiency of service. The denial on the part of the OPs are evasive. Such being the position, allegation regarding deficiency of service on the part of OPs tantamounts to admission on the part of the OPs.

          It is further to be noted is that notice was served upon the OPs as per name and address of the OPs mentioned in the complaint. Said Tridib Chowdhury received the said notices and appeared before this District Commission and filed W/V. So, it is clear that said Tridib Chowdhury stepped into the shoes of the OPs.

          For argument sake, said Tridib Chowdhury is not the OPs, then it would be proper for said Tridib Chowdhury to make an application before this District Commission  for adding him additional party to this case. But instead of that said Tridib Chowdhury is contesting the case on behalf of OPs. Such being the position, we further hold that said Tridib Chowdhury stepped into the shoes of the OPs

          In view of the matters discussed above we are of the view that the Complainant has been able to establish her case.

Reasons for delay:

          The Case was filed on 18.07.22 and admitted on 01.08.22. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.

In the result, the Consumer case is allowed.

Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is

                                      Ordered

that the complaint Case No. CC/63/2022 be and the same is allowed on contestagainst the OPs with litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/-.

The Complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 6,100/- (Six Thousand and one hundred) from the OPs.

The Complainant is further entitled to get Rs. 5,900/- (Five Thousand and nine hundred)  for mental pain and agony from the OPs.

          OPs are directed to pay Rs. 15,000/- ( Fifteen Thousand only) in total to the Complainant by 23.08.23 in default the said amount of Rs. 15,000/- will carry interest @ 10% p.a. on and from 24.08.23.

          OPs are further directed to receive back the disputed saree from the house of the Complainant after giving proper receipt to the Complainant and the Complainant is directed to return the disputed saree after receiving the awarded money.

          Let plain copy of this order  be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand  /by post under proper acknowledgment  as per rules, for information and necessary action.

The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:

    confonet.nic.in

Dictated & corrected by me.

President

     Member                                                                                 President.