Sri Rituraj Dey, Member
The complainant has filed the present case praying for an order against OPs for payment of Rs. 2,41,800/- as value of 46500 bricks, Rs. 25,000/- for the development purpose of bricks field, Rs.50,000/- for harassment & mental agony and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
The complainant’s case, in brief, is that the complainant issued two cheques bearing Rs 1,30,000/- and Rs 1,62,000/- and paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash only to the proprietors cum owners of Radha Bricks Work in presence of both the managers in their office. The complainant got two receipts copies made In the ‘Radha Bricks Works’ pad regarding the said transaction. The two receipt copies were handed over to the Complainant by Op No.1 &Op. No.2 with acknowledgement of receiving of Rs. 3,12,000/- on dt. 18/09/2012 and 21/09/2012. The Op.No. 2 had withdrawn the said amount of the two cheques of PNB and SBI on the same date. According to the Complainant the Ops delivered 13500 bricks of below standard @Rs. 5200/- per 1000 bricks. The complainant paid Rs. 25,000/- more in cash to the Op NO.2 in presence of other Ops. The Op. No. 1 promised to the Complainant in presence of other Ops to deliver the total number of bricks as per business deal. In accordance with the Complainant, the Ops have not delivered the remaining number of bricks in spite of repeated reminders. The Complainant filed a complaint before Asst. Director of Consumer Affairs Department, W.B. Govt., Purba Medinipur office but got no relief. Hence the instant case has been filed by the Complainant.
The OP No.1 has appeared in the case by filing w/v only wherein he has stated that the OP No.3,4,5 and 6 are the proprietors /owners of the Radha Bricks Works. Due to loss in the session of 2011-2012 the owners did not want to continue their business and stopped the business for some times. Then both the OP No.1 & 2 requested the OP No.3,4,5,and 6 to give them permission to conduct the business of brick field at their own risk. As per the request of OP No.1 & 2, the owner or OP No.3 ,4, 5 & 6 permitted the op.no.1&2 to conduct the business for the session of 2012-2013 at their own risk. As per OP No.1, OP No.2 would maintain the account and customer dealings and OP No.1 would look after the manufacturing section of bricks works as well as supervision portion related to labour only. After the end of the 2012 and form January 2013 the said bricks field works was stopped. According to the OP No.1, OP No.2 continued the bricks works falsely and deceitfully. The owners of the bricks field did not visit the bricks fields and did not make any business dealing in the period of 2012-2013. The OP No.1 has brought an allegation against the complainant indicating his internal negotiation with OP No.2 to get unlawful benefit from the owners of the Radha Bricks Works. As per OP No.1, complainant and OP No. 2 have combined to grab the money from the owners. The letter pad of the owners was illegally used by the OP No.2. According the OP No.1, the OP No. 2 and OP No.1 themselves were not appointed as manager or have/had no right to deal with any other person as manager.
The OP No.2 has appeared in the present case by filing W/V as well as W/N/A wherein he has stated himself as an unemployed youth and a temporary staff of Radha Bricks Works engaged by OP No. 3,4,5 & 6. According to OP No.2, OP No.2 had no independent function. In accordance with OP No.2 he was/is not a manager of Radha Bricks Works and that can be proved from the documents filed by the petitioner. The OP No.2 has no responsibility / liability for said / any business transaction. He had only the function to carry out the order of OP No.1 and OP No.3,4,5 & 6.
The Op. No 3,4,5 & 6 have appeared in this case by filling w/v only wherein the said ops have admitted about their business of Radha Bricks Works in Purba Medinipur at 2011-2012 session. They stopped the said business due to loss in business and did not want to continue the said business. According to OP No.3,4,5 & 6, OP No. 1 & 2 wanted to conduct the business for the session of 2012-2013 at their own risk. The OP No.3,4,5 & 6 handed over the said business to OP No.1 & 2 under their own liabilities and risk for the session of 2012-2013 only. In accordance with the OP No.3,4,5 & 6 these OPs are living far from the business place and did not come to the business place to take part in the said business in the session of 2012-2013. The said Ops who are the owners of the said bricks field did not appoint the OP No. 1 & 2 as manager or employee in the ‘Radha Bricks Works’. According to the Op No. 3,4,5,&6 the Complainant did not meet the said Ops and no business deal was taken place in between the Complainant and said Ops. As per Op No. 3,4,5 & 6, they have come to know after receiving notice of this case that the OP No.1 & 2 want to grab the money from these Ops by evil motive.
We have gone through the papers and documents of the parties. The documents including W/N/A submitted by them except OP No.1 & OP No.3,4,5,6.
Points for Consideration
- In there any deficiency in service on the part of the OP/OPs?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief / Compensation ?
With an eye to the above two points the discussions are mentioned below.
The OP No.1 & OP.3,4,5 & 6 have appeared in the case and submitted W/Vs. The OP No.3,4,5 & 6 have filed a prayer for stay of further proceeding of instant complainant’s case but the said petition was heard and rejected and the OPs were directed to file W/N/A. On the date of hearing of the instant case the OP.1 & OP No 3,4,5 & 6 filed the petition for time on the ground stated therein and said petitions were also rejected but the OP.1 & OP No.3,4,5 & 6 in spite of being present did not take part in the hearing of the case and kept themselves away from making any submission before this Forum. As such the case is heared on contest and the same has been decided on merit.
Decision with reason
Having perused the facts it appears that OP No.3,4,5 & 6 who are the owners of the Radha Bricks Works on request of OP No. 1 & 2 handed over the business to the OP No.1 & 2, related to Radha Bricks Works for the session of 2012-13 by the own risk of OP No.1 & 2. The OP No.1 has admitted the fact in his W/V. From the said fact it appears that the OP 3,4,5 &6 had no liability, responsibility and obligation in respect of the said business related Radha Bricks Works in the session of 2012-2013. Having seen the documents filed by the complainant we find that the OP.1 & 2 received Rs.3,12,000/- from the complainant for supply /delivery of 60,000 pieces of bricks. From the money receipt dated 21/09/2012 issued by OP No.1 to the complainant, it appears that Op No.1 received Rs. 3,12,000/- from the complainant for giving delivery of 60,000 pieces of bricks. In the said receipt the OP No.1 has mentioned himself as a manager of Radha Bricks Works but the OP No.1 has admitted in his W/V that in the session of 2012-2013 he and OP No.2 had taken the business of Radha Bricks Works from OP No.3,4,5 & 6 at their own risk and responsibility. It proves that the OP No.1 had received the said amount from the complainant for supplying of bricks at his own risk. As the complainant had already received 13,500 pieces of bricks from the OPs previously, so, it is the responsibility of OP No.1 either to supply 46,500 pieces of bricks or to return the amount of Rs. 2,41,800/- to the complainant.
We also find a receipt dated 18/09/2012 issued by OP No.2, filed by the complainant but in the said receipt, from whom Rs. 3,12,000/- has been taken is not mentioned. Besides from the account statement of the pass book of P.N.B chaitanyapur Branch and pass book of S.B.I chaitanyapur Branch of the complainant, it appears that Rs. 1,30,000/- and Rs. 1,62,000/- had been credited to the M. Bag and Mukul Bag A/C on 18/09/2012 and 21/09/2012 respectively. From the money receipt and account statements of P.N.B and S.B.I where the complainant’s accounts exist, it has been cleared that OP No.2 received Rs. 1,30,000/- as well as Rs. 1,62,000/- and he was well known about the receiving of advance amount of Rs. 3,12,000/- in which Rs. 1,30,000/- ,Rs 1,62,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- are included.
Having gone through the fact and documents it appears that both OP No.1 & 2 had received Rs.3,12,000/- by cheque and cash from the complainant for supplying of 60,000 pices of bricks on such period when OP No.3,4,5 &6 were not attached and related to the said bricks business. OP No.1 has admitted the fact and OP No.2 received the amount which has been seen from Bank A/Cs of the complainant. As the OP No.1 & OP No.2 had received the said amount from the complainant for the said delivery, so, it had been the liability, obligation and duty of OP No.1 &2 to supply or deliver the said number of bricks to the complainant in time. As the OP No.1 & OP No.2 have failed to fulfill their commitment in toto, then it has been the duty of OP No.1 & OP No.2 to return the total amount of undelivered bricks to the complainant.
In the facts and circumstances of the instant case and having regard to the discussion made above, we are of the view that it would be justified to direct OP No.1 & OP No.2 to pay jointly Rs.2,41,800 to the complainant including an interest of Rs. 9% per annum calculated from 21/09/2012. Apart from that, the complainant is also entitled to get compensations of Rs. 10,000/- for harassment and mental agony and Rs. 3000/- as litigation cost.
The above two points are, thus, disposed of with the above observation and findings
Hence, it is
Ordered
that the instant C.Case No.78/2014 be and the same is allowed against OP.No.1 and OP No.2 and dismissed against OP No. 3,4,5 & 6 on contest. Both the OP No. 1 & OP No. 2 are directed to pay jointly Rs. 2,41,800/-including the interest @ Rs. 9% P.A. on Rs. 2,41,800/-, calculated from 21/09/2012 to the Complainant along with the compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and the litigation cost of Rs.3,000/- within 30 days from the date of issuance of this order, failing which the OP. No. 1 & OP No. 2 will be liable to pay fine of Rs.100/- per day charging from the date of issuance of the order till date of compliance of the order in toto. The complainant is at liberty to put the order in execution after expiry of 30 days from the date of issuance of this order as per Law.
