THE PRESIDENT

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CC- 25 of 2019

 

Shri Dipak Chandra Kar,

S/O- Late Makhan Lal Kar,

Shibnagar, College Road,

P.S. East Agartala, 

District- West Tripura.

P.O. Agartala College.   .........Complainant.

 

Vrs. 

 

1.   ''Maa Kamakhya Machineries,

Represented by its proprietor

Mr. Sanjoy Kanu of Ulakh Market, 

Near Railway Gate No.4,

M.S. Road, Guwahati, Assam.- 781001. 

 

2.   Shyam Sundar Roadways,

Represented by its Branch Manager,

Santipara, East Agartala P.S.,

West Tripura- 799001.....Opposite parties.

 

-Present-

 

 SRI RUHIDAS PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

Dr (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

Order

 

07.05.2021- Today was fixed for passing final order. Accordingly we are passing final order.

In brief the fact of the case is that the complainant filed an application under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 for granting compensation on account of deliberate negligence and failure of rendering proper contractual service followed by unfair trade practice. That the complainant is a class-1 contractor by occupation and he is also having business of stone crusher and mixer machines. He has collected quotations from the different manufacturers for purchasing machineries like, jaw crusher machine, hollow drill, rod, conveyor belt, air compressor etc. and as the rate quoted by the O.P. No.1 was finally accepted by the complainant, he placed order on 07.03.2018 for delivery of those machineries and also made payment of price amounting to Rs.2,61,500/- including GST and sent the same through RTGS to the Bank Account of the O.P. No.1 on 22.03.2018. After receipt of the consignment, it was found that the O.P. No.1 had supplied the defective non-operative air compressor. Thus, they had observed unfair trade practice due to deficiency of service rendered by the O.P. No.1 beyond the oral contract dated 07.03.2018. Accordingly, the complainant filed a complaint case bearing No. CC-32 of 2018 which was disposed of for non-prosecution and it is a second complaint on the same facts. 

Initially the case was proceeded exparte against the O.P. No.1 and 2 vide order dated 01.07.2019 and 31.07.2019 respectively. Subsequently the O.P. No.1 preferred Revision petition against the said order before the Hon'ble State Commission and the Revision petition was numbered as RP- 04 of 2019. Ultimately the Revision Petition was allowed and set aside all the order from 01.07.2019 to 27.11.2019 in respect of O.P. No.1 is concerned and the matter is remanded back to the District Commission to hear the O.P. No.1 on his application challenging the question of maintainability of the complaint and after getting back the record from the  Hon'ble State Commission notice was issued upon the complainant as well as O.P. No.1 and accordingly they appeared but subsequently the complainant remained absent and no objection was filed by the complainant on the petition challenging the maintainability of the complaint by the O.P. No.1. On the last occasion in the date of hearing no step was taken from the side of the complainant. Accordingly we heard learned Advocate Mr. Manoj Debnath for the O.P. No.1 and at the time of hearing he submitted that the complainant earlier filed another complaint bearing no- CC-32 of 2018 and that complaint was disposed of on 21.09.2019 for non-prosecution. He further submitted that as per Consumer Protection Act there is no provision for filing of second complaint on the same cause of action by the same party and as such the present complaint is not maintainable. There is no dispute in respect of filing of earlier complaint. The present complaint is filed U/S 12 of the C.P. Act 1986. As per provision of Section 13 clause (C) of Sub-Section (2) which provides that where the complainant fails to appear on the date of hearing before the District Forum, District Forum may either dismiss the complaint for default or decide it on merit. 

So, the above provision clearly speaks that if the complainant fails to appear then the case may be dismissed for non-prosecution. In the present complaint at para- 12, it is averted that earlier a complaint filed one complaint and it was registered as the case no. CC-32 of 2018 and that complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. So it is admitted fact that the previous complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution and we agree with the submission of Learned Advocate Mr. Manoj Debnath of the O.P. No.1 that there is no provision in the C.P. Act, 1986 for filing of second complaint on the same cause of action by the same party. So we are in the opinion that this complaint is not maintainable in law. Accordingly it is dismissed. No costs. Supply copy of the order free of cost to the complainant and the O.P. No.1.