DATE OF FILING                    :     22-01-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      08-05-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     28-08-2014.

Madhusudan Naskar,

son of late Nutbehari Naskar,

residing at village – Basukati,  Anandangar ( near Shibtala ),

P.O. Anandanagar, P.S. Bally,

District –Howrah,

PIN – 711227.----.--------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

1.         Samir Mondal,

            son of Bistu Mondal,

            Village – Dabirpara ( 2 no. ), P.O.  Chamrail, P.S. Liluah,

            District – Howrah,

            PIN – 711114.

2.         RMP Infotec Private Limited,

            F1,  First Floor, Apollo Dubai Plaza

            ( near Kedambakkam Bridge ),

            100, Mahalingapurom Main Road,

            Chenni – 600034. --------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTIES.

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  Complainant, Madhusudan  Naskar,  by filing a petition U/S 12 of the C .P.

Act, 1986 ( as amended up to date ) has prayed for a direction to be given upon the o.ps. to refund the purchase price being Rs. 6,990/- of an energy saver, Nano Card ( pain relief ) along with other orders  as the  Forum may deem fit and proper.

2.               Brief facts of the case is that the complainant purchased an energy saver, Nano Card ( pain relief ) on payment of Rs. 6,990/- on 27-05-2011 from o.p. no. 2 through persuasion of o.p. no. 1. But it is alleged by him that the said product was not working properly since purchase. As o.p. no. 1 is an agent of o.p. no. 2, complainant made repeated requests to both of them either to exchange or to refund the purchase price. But they did not pay any heed to his request and complainant did not get any service out of such purchase. Hence the case. . 

3.               Notices were served. O.P. no. 2 appeared and filed written version but o.p. no. 1 neither  appeared nor filed  any written version. So the case was ex parte against o.p. no. 1.   

4.               Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.    Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. We  have carefully gone through the written version filed by o.p. no. 2 and noted its  contents. Denying and disputing all allegations of the complainant leveled against them, o.p. no. 2 has taken a specific plea that no product was served by them to the complainant.  Complainant purchased an article from o.p. no. 1 who is not at all an agent of o.p. no. 2.  But in affidavit  in reply, complainant has categorically controverted  the same. On perusal of the annexure, we find o.p.no. 2 issued a money receipt in favour of the complainant acknowledging the receipt of Rs. 6,990/-. So o.p. no. 2 has no way to escape from his liability. For a common man it is not at all a luxury to file a case and spent time leaving aside his own day to day job. Complainant has repeatedly requested the o.ps. to redress his problem but none of them did care which is nothing but a gross negligence in discharging duties towards the complainant. Accordingly we think it is a fit case for allowing the prayer of the complainant and as the o.p. no. 1 is the agent of o.p. no. 2, o.p.no. 2 is solely responsible in this case. Points under consideration are accordingly decided.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No. 31 of 2014 ( HDF 31 of 2014 )  be  allowed on contest with  costs  against  o.p. no. 2 and dismissed ex parte  against the O.P. no. 1 without cost. 

      That the  O.P  no. 2 is  directed to pay Rs. 6,990/-  to the complainant within one month from  date of this order along with Rs. 1,000/- as compensation and  Rs. 1,000/- as litigation costs.  

       That the o.p. no. 2 is further  directed to pay the entire decreetal amount of Rs. 8,990/-  to the complainant within one month from the date of this order i.d., the entire amount shall carry an interest @ 10% per annum till full realization.      

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

      (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                  

  Member, C.D.R.F., Howrah.