C.F. CASE No. : CC/09/36
COMPLAINANT : Santosh Das
S/o Late Mani Das
Vill. Chichuria, Palpara,
P.O. Chichuria,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia.
OPPOSITE PARTY/OP : Prop. Prosenjit Saha
Adi Sajsajya
Vill. Railbazar, P.O. Bethuadahari,
P.S. Nakashipara, Dist. Nadia
PRESENT : KANAILAL CHAKRABORTY PRESIDENT
: KUMAR MUKHOPADHYAY MEMBER
: SMT SHIBANI BHATTACHARYA MEMBER
DATE OF DELIVERY
OF JUDGMENT : 9th April, 2010
: J U D G M E N T :
In brief, the case of the complainant is that on 07.11.08 he purchased one sweater from the shop-room of the OP at a price of Rs. 110/-. The OP issued a receipt to that extent in his favour. It is his further case that after returning home he found that the sweater was torn. On 20.12.08 he met the OP and asked him to exchange the sweater at which the OP asked him to come later on. Accordingly, on 22.01.09 he again met the OP who asked him to keep the sweater at his custody as the Co. would not exchange it at that time and if he would meet him in the next month, the OP would take step. Thereafter, on 06.03.09 the complainant met the OP who declined to supply a fresh one. Even he declined to repay its price also. So having no other alternative he has filed this case praying for the reliefs as stated on complaint.
OP has filed a written version in this case, inter alia, stating that he sold a sweater to this petitioner on 27.11.08 at a price of Rs. 110/- and not on 07.11.08 as stated by the complainant. He has also stated that prior to delivery the complainant examined it and found no defect in it. Being satisfied he took this sweater from this OP. This complainant never met him on 20.12.08 or 22.01.09 or 06.03.09. So no question of returning or supplying a new one on his part does arise. It is his specific allegation that he came to learn that being influenced by one Sisir Kr. Basak this complainant has falsely filed this case against him in order to harass him and to lower down his goodwill. So the complainant has no cause of action to file this case and the same is liable to be dismissed against him.
POINTS FOR DECISION
Point No.1: Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
Point No.2: Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
Both the points are taken up together for discussion as they are interrelated and for the sake of convenience.
On a careful perusal of the petition of complaint along with annexed documents filed by the complainant and the written version filed the OP and also after hearing the arguments advanced by the ld. lawyers for the parties it is available on record that the complainant purchased one sweater from the OP on 27.11.08 at a price of Rs. 110/- which is also admitted by the OP in the written version. OP also issued a receipt to that extent vide 'Annexure – 1’. The complainant’s specific case is that after returning home he found that the sweater was in torn condition, as a result of which he could not use the same which is denied by the OP. Complainant has mentioned that several dates he met the OP requesting him to exchange the sweater with a new one at which the OP declined. From the evidences made by the PW No. 2 & 3 it is available that they were present at the time of purchase of the sweater by the complainant and also the dates when the complainant requested the OP to supply a fresh one in lieu of the torn sweater at which the OP declined. On this point ld. lawyer for the OP submits that the names of the PW No. 2 & 3 are not mentioned by the complainant in the petition of complaint that they were present as stated by them. At the same time the OP has alleged that due to previous enmity and being influenced by one Sisir Kr. Basak this complainant has filed this case against him. But on this point no documentary evidence is filed by him nor any OPW has filed any evidence supporting this contention of the OP. On the other hand, from one document filed by the complainant, it is available that on 08.12.09 he filed a complaint before the O.C., Nakashipara P.S. making some allegations against the OP regarding another matter in connection with the present case. In view of the above discussions, we hold that the complainant purchased sweater on 27.11.08 at a price of Rs. 110/-. It is also established that the defect of the sweater was detected by the complainant later on for which he requested the OP to exchange it with a fresh one, but the OP did not act as per that. We do further hold that there is gross deficiency in service on the part of this OP for non-supplying a fresh one in lieu of the defective sweater to the complainant. So our considered view is that the complainant has become able to prove his case and he is entitled to get the price of the defective sweater along with cost and compensation also. In result the case succeeds.
Hence,
Ordered,
That the case, CC/09/36 be and the same is allowed on contest against he OP. The complainant is entitled to get Rs. 110/- as price of the sweater + Rs. 300/- as compensation and Rs. 200/- as litigation cost, in total Rs. 610/-. OP is directed to pay the decretal amount to the complainant within a period of one month since this date of passing this order, in default, the decretal amount will accrue interest @ 9% per annum since this date till the date of realization of the full amount.
Let a copy of this judgment be delivered to the parties free of cost.
