West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/24/2013

SK. Sahajan Ali. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Quazi Sadiur Rahaman. - Opp.Party(s)

09 Sep 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President

And

Mrs. Debi Sengupta, Member

   

Complaint Case No.24/2013

                                                       

                                                                                Sk. Sahajan Ali……….……Complainant.

Versus

                                                                                Quazi Sadiur Rahaman………..Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant  : Partha Kumar Pati, Advocate.

              For the O.P.                 : Nirmal Kumar De, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 09/09/2015

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President- Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant made an agreement on 16/01/2012 with the opposite party Quazi Sadiur Rahaman, the proprietor of a brick field named and styled as Shakti Bricks Ltd. situated within the jurisdiction of this Forum for selling 30,000 pieces of bricks to the complainant @ Rs.6,000/-  per thousand bricks.  On basis of the said agreement dated 16/01/2012, the complainant tendered Rs.25,000/- to the opposite party as advance and thereafter the complainant paid Rs.25,000/- on 06/02/2012, Rs.25,000/- on 11/02/2012, Rs.15,000/- on 26/02/2012 and Rs.10,000/-  on 05/03/2012 total amounting to  Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party and took 21,000 pieces of bricks on different dates.  The complainant incurred Rs.10,500/- as carrying cost for carrying those 21,000 pieces of bricks.  During construction work, the said bricks were found to be of below quality and those are found to be melted in rain water.  Thereafter, the complainant informed the said matter to the opposite party and asked him on several times to change those defective bricks.  Opposite party paid no heed to such request of the complainant and he also did not change those defective bricks.  On 18/01/2013, the complainant sent a letter to the opposite party through his Ld. Lawyer Mr. Partha Kumar Pati demanding either to replace the defective

Contd…………..P/2

                                                                          

( 2 )

bricks or to pay back the   money amounting  into Rs.1,30,000/- to the complainant within 15 days from the date of receipt of the letter.   After receiving the said letter, the opposite party sent a reply letter on 05/02/2013 to the complainant through his Advocate Sri Nirmal Kumar De thereby denying his liability to replace those defective bricks or to pay back Rs.1,30,000/-.  Hence, the complaint praying for an order directing the opposite party either to replace the defective bricks or to pay Rs.1,50,000/- as compensation with cost of  Rs.25,000/- towards mental pain and agony and Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost.

                  Opposite party has contested this case by filing a written objection.   Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is a specific case of the opposite party that before entering into contract of purchasing of 2^nd quality of bricks, the complainant being satisfied with the quality of bricks, ordered for supplying 20,000 pieces of bricks at first @ Rs.6,000 per 1,000 bricks excluding carrying cost.  Thereafter, the complainant advanced Rs.25,000/- and took away 20,000 pieces of bricks valued at Rs.1,20,000/- and thereafter by installments, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- and Rs.30,000/- is still lying dues. At the time of delivery of aforesaid bricks, the complainant was very much present and as per his choice and instruction he carried away the bricks from the brick field of the opposite party.  Subsequently,  the complainant placed order for 10,000 pieces of bricks @ Rs.6,000/- per thousand bricks and thereafter the complainant took delivery of  1,500  pieces of bricks from the opposite party but till now no payment has been made by the complainant to the opposite party. So a total sum of Rs.39,000/- is lying dues with interest.  On several times, the opposite party requested the complainant to repay the aforesaid dues amount but till today, he did not pay the said amount.  The opposite party, therefore, claims dismissal of the complaint with cost.

 

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?     

                   

Decision with reasons

               To prove their respective cases, the complainant has examined himself as PW-1 and he submitted some documents by firisty which were not proved in evidence.

              On the other hand, the opposite party has examined himself as opposite party no.(1)  and one witness named Prafullya Bardolai as OPW-2.

              The moot question for consideration in this case is that whether the bricks supplied by the opposite party are defective and of below  quality or not ?  Admittedly, as per agreement made between the complainant and the opposite party, the complainant

Contd…………..P/3

                                                                           

( 3 )                  

      took delivery of 21000 pieces of bricks on different dates from the brick field of the opposite party. According to the complainant, he paid Rs.1,00,000/- to the opposite party towards the value of those the bricks of 21,000 pieces but according to the opposite party, the complainant paid  Rs.90,000/- for such purchase of 21,000 pieces of bricks and a sum of Rs.30,000/- is still lying due.  Further according to the opposite party, subsequently the complainant took delivery of 1,500 pieces of bricks from the opposite party but he did not pay the price thereof.  So, the total sum of Rs.39,000/- is lying due from the complainant.  Now about the quality of bricks, as alleged by the complainant, we find that the complainant took no steps in this case for examination of those bricks by any other expert or manufacturer of bricks. To the contrary, we find from his cross-examination that he admitted that after being satisfied with the quality and thorough check and examination, he took delivery of those bricks.  He has further admitted in his cross-examination that at the time of carrying the bricks, he did not notice any sort of defects.  Strange enough, although in the petition of complaint there is an allegation of defects of bricks but the complainant during his cross-examination has stated that he cannot say the contents of his petition of complaint and he has no idea about that.  Again, he has stated in his cross-examination on 11/12/13 that he has no idea about the statements recorded in his examination in chief.  It thus appears that the complainant is totally ignorant about the allegation made in the petition of complaint as well as in his written examination-in-chief.  It is also to be stated here that in the petition of complaint, it has been alleged by the complainant that at the time of construction work, he found those bricks to be of below quality and the same was found to be melted by rain water.  Curiously enough, in his cross-examination, this O.PW-1, the complainant has stated that he has not yet taken due preparation for raising construction of his residential building.  It thus appears that the complainant’s statement in his petition of complaint and in his cross-examination is mutual contradictory.  That apart, we further find from the cross-examination of O.PW-1 that he has admitted the opposite parties case by admitting that balance sum of Rs.29,000/- has not been paid by him to the opposite party due to his inability to pay the same.  At the time of hearing of argument,  Ld. Lawyer of the opposite party submitted that since the opposite party demanded for making payment of such dues amount of Rs.29,000/-,  so this case has been  framed and filed with false allegation.  We find substance in the said submission of the Ld. Lawyer of the opposite party in as much as it is none but the complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that a sum of Rs.29,000/- is still payable by him to the opposite party for supply of bricks

Contd…………..P/4

                                                                           

(4 )

      to him.  We have already stated, that is none but the complainant has admitted in his cross-examination that after being satisfied with the quality of the bricks, he took delivery of those bricks and at the time of carrying those bricks,  he did not notice any sort of defects.  We have further stated that there is nothing on record to show and to  prove that those bricks were of below quality.

                                   In the above facts and circumstances of the case and in view of above       discussion, we have no hesitation to hold that the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case and he is, therefore, not entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

 

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                                        Ordered,

                                                                               that the complaint case no.24/2013 is hereby dismissed on contest without cost.

                 Dictated & Corrected by me

             

                           President                                     Member                                       President

                                                                                                                               District Forum

                                                                                                                            Paschim Medinipur