Dt. of filing : 06/08/2019
Dt. of Judgement : 11/02/2021
Mr. Ayan Sinha, Hon’ble Member
This is a complaint u/s 12 read with 13 of the C.P.Act, 1986 made by Dr. Manisha Mukherjee, proprietor, Protima Beauty Parlour, 10/2B, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street, Kolkata-700026 against Sherul Kalra, the Proprietor, Ad Service 106, B. T. Road, Bonhooghly , Kolkata 700108, P.S. Baranagar praying for a direction upon the Opposite Party to repay the amount of Rs.53,000/- with 12% interest along with compensation of Rs.20,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/-.
Facts in Brief
The Complainant is running a Small Beauty Parlour under the name & style ‘Protima Beauty Parlour’ by obtaining a license from Kolkata Municipality at her address 10/2B, Nepal Bhattacharjee Street, Kolkata-700026 for her livelihood as it is the only source of income.
As stated in the petition, she contacted with the Opposite Party for LED BOARD Size 14 x 1 ½ for the parlour and as mentioned in OP’s letter Ref. No.MD-119 dated 4/6/2018, the total amount of Rs.50,000/- was paid to the Opposite Party on 15/6/2018 against installation of the said LED BOARD at her address. But within two days from the date of installation there was no display on the LED BOARD for which the Complainant immediately informed the Opposite Party over telephone to which the Opposite Party did not response. Thereafter the Complainant through an expert checked the disputed LED BOARD and found it is defective.
The Complainant wrote a letter to the Opposite Party on 3/10/2018 requesting to replace the said LED BOARD and thereafter she lodged a complaint at Consumer Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal to which Opposite Parties did not take any action as per letter of Consumer Affairs Department. She also lodged a complaint at Baranagar P.S. on 12/3/2019 but no action was taken by the said authority as stated in her complaint petition. Thus being aggrieved by the act of Opposite Party, this complaint petition has been filed.
Notice was served upon the Opposite Party but the Opposite Party did not appear nor they contested this case by filing written version and finally the matter was heard ex-parte against Opposite Party.
Complainant has annexed photo copies of some documents along with her petition. In order to reiterate her case, the Complainant filed a petition praying to treat her complaint petition as affidavit-in-chief.
Brief Notes of Argument has also been filed by the Complainant.
Main Points for Determination
- Whether the Complainant is a consumer.
- Whether there was any unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party.
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to the relief as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point (i)
On perusal of the copies of documents in record it appears that the Opposite Party has issued one letter vide Ref.MD-119 dated 4/6/2018 in favour of Protima Beauty Parlour mentioning certain specifications of the LED BOARD along with the total price for the same. Accordingly the Complainant has paid the full amount of Rs.53,200/- which is duly received by the Opposite Party. It is also mentioned by the Complainant in Para 2 of the complaint petition that she is running this Beauty Parlour for her livelihood purpose by means of self employment. As such there is no doubt that the Complainant is a consumer and point (i) answered accordingly.
Point (ii) & (iii)
On careful scrutiny of the letter No.MD-119 dated 4/6/2018 issued by Opposite Party, we find that the Opposite Party had already signed and received the full amount from the Complainant on15/6/2018 mentioning warranty for the LED BOARD is for 2 years. We also find that the Complainant took the help of licensed expert DINESH MONDAL, License No.1002521and the report of the expert is also annexed with the complaint petition stating that the Electrical Circuit Board is defective and the said display is not functioning for which there is no display on the Board. We have also given a thought why should the Complainant approach technical expert knowingly that the LED BOARD is covered under 2 years warranty. So it is clearly understood that when the complainant did not get any response from the Opposite Party after her complaint within 2 days she had to take the help of an expert for ascertaining the defects. On the contrary Opposite Party after selling and installing the said LED BOARD against full payment with an assurance of warranty was reluctant to attend Complainant’s problem and remained silent for which the Complainant had to lodge her complaint both in P.S. and Consumer Affairs Department, Government of West Bengal which is certainly an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party. Considering the facts and circumstances and since the allegations remained unchallenged & unrebutted, we are of the opinion that there was an unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party for which the Complainant is entitled to the reliefs.
Complainant has also prayed for Rs.20,000/- as compensation and litigation cost of Rs.15,000/- which is exaggerated.
In our view if a direction can be given upon Opposite Party to refund Rs.53,000/- to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs..8,000/- justice will be served.
Hence,
ORDERED
CC/401/2019 and the same is allowed ex-parte against the Opposite Party.
Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.53,000/- and pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.8,000/- to the Complainant within 45 days from the date of this order, in default the total amount shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of this order.
Opposite Party is also directed to collect the disputed LED BOARD from the address of the Complainant free of cost against the full payment to the Complainant as stated above in the order.
