West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/55/2017

Mahitosh Kr Nandi, S/O Lt C.H Nandi - Complainant(s)

Versus

Putu Ansari (Carpenter) - Opp.Party(s)

Joy Gopal Das

30 Jan 2018

ORDER

The case of the complainant Mahitosh Kr. Nandi, in brief, is that he is resident of Natunpally, Suri, Birbhum and O.P Putu Ansari is a local carpenter. The complainant entered into an oral valid agreement with the O.P in the year 2014 and as per agreement the O.P promised to deliver a wooden Khat and as per said agreement the O.P promised to deliver the same in the month of January 2016 on receipt of Rs. 5,000/-.

            It is the further case of the complainant that he issued a cheque dated 17.03.2014 amounting to Rs. 5000/- in favour of the O.P, who encashed the same but did not supply such wooden khat and denied the matter of receiving Rs. 5000/- by cheque.

            A legal notice is duly served upon the O.P but no consequence.

            It is the further case of the complainant that the acts of the O.P are nothing but deficiency in service and illegal trade practice.

            Hence, this case for directing the O.P to pay Rs. 5000/- to the complainant and Rs. 10000/-as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

            Inspite of due service of notice O.P did not turn up and the case was practically heard ex parte against the O.P.

            Point for determination.

1.  Whether the complainant is a consumer under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.?
2. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try this case?
3. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled to get any other relief or reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

During the trial the complainant Mohitosh Kr. Mondal has  been examined as PW1 and filed some documents.

Heard arguments of Ld. Advocate/Agent of the complainant.

Point No.1:: Evidently the complainant paid Rs. 5000/- to the O.P for purchasing a wooden khat by cheque.

            So, the complainant is a consumer U/s 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.

Point No.2:: The shop of the O.P is situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum.

The total valuation of the case is Rs. 16500/- which is far less than maximum limit of the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Forum i.e. Rs. 20,00,000/-.

So, this Forum has pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to try this case.

Point No. 3 and 4:: Both points are taken up together for convenience of discussion as they are related to

each other.

The complainant in his complaint and evidence stated that he is resident of Natunpally, Suri, Birbhum and O.P Putu Ansari is a local carpenter. The complainant entered into an oral valid agreement with the O.P in the year 2014 and as per agreement the O.P promised to deliver a wooden Khat and as per said agreement the O.P promised to deliver the same in the month of January 2016 on receipt of Rs. 5,000/- and he issued a cheque dated 17.03.2014 amounting to Rs. 5000/- in favour of the O.P, who encashed the same but did not supply such wooden khat and denied the matter of receiving Rs. 5000/- by cheque.

Xerox copy of the passbook of the complainant shows that on 17.03.2014 Rs. 5000/- was debited from the said account of the complainant and paid to O.P.

Xerox copy of the advocate’s letter issued by Shri Joygopal Das, Advocate, postal receipt and track report of post office show that legal notice asking the O.P to return back Rs. 5000/- to the complainant, has been duly service upon the O.P.

We find that complainant by filing evidence on affidavit claimed that he paid Rs. 5000/- to the O.P Putu Ansari for a wooden Khat through cheque. The O.P has encashed the same but has not delivered the said khat.

Entry of the passbook of the complainant also supported his case.

In this case inspite of due service of notice O.P has not come forward to the Forum to contest the case and to face cross examination of the complainant.

So, the evidence of the complainant on oath is unchallenged.

In view of the ruling reported in IV2006CPJ 2013(NC) wherein a complaint case the complainant filed an affidavit by way of evidence but the O.Ps neither filed any evidence by way of affidavit nor cross examined the deponent. Hon’ble National Commission pleased to hold that allegation of the complainant remained uncontroverted and in absence of any counter affidavit case of the complainant stands prove.

Considering unchallenged evidence of the complainant on oath and relying upon the ruling cited above we are constrained to hold that the complainant has been able to prove his case.

Thus these points are decided in favour of the complainant. The case succeeds in ex parte.

Proper fees have been paid.

Hence,

O R D E R E D

that C.F case No. 55/2017 be and the same is allowed on ex parte  against the O.P with a cost of Rs. 1000/-.

            The O.P is directed to return back Rs. 5000/- along with Rs. 2000/- to the complainant as compensation for mental pain and agony.  All such orders shall comply within one month from the date of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to execute the order as per law and procedure.

            Copy of this order be supplied to the parties each free of cost.