West Bengal

Birbhum

CC/6/2020

Sri Bishnupada Mondal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Shi M. C. Das, Prop DHMGOS - Opp.Party(s)

Subrata Mukhopadhaya

29 Jun 2022

ORDER

Smt. Sukla Sengupta . President.

            The complainant has filed this case under section 12 of the C.P Act. 1986 as amended up to date.

            The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant being a resident of Vill. Beluti within the District Birbhum, has purchased a new set of pumping materials for his submersible pump set at a consideration of Rs. 50,500/- (Fifty thousand five hundred) only and also paid Rs. 10,000/- for installation charge from the OP proprietor of Das Hardware Merchant and General Order Supplier. The OP is running his business at Sainthia, District Birbhum.

            It is alleged in the petition of the complaint that the installation of the pumping materials was not proper and it was not functioned properly. Then the complainant again called the said mechanic who after proper examination of the pumping materials informed the complainant that the pipes in question are defective and broken. Which is the cause of non-functioning of the pump set properly and which caused the expense of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) more to the complainant. Being informed about this defect from the mechanic the complainant requested the OP to change the defective pipes but the OP did not pay any heed to his words or request and threatened him with dire consequences.

            Then the complainant requested the OP to return his money i.e. the valuation of the pumping materials after getting back the defective set of pumping materials but the OP denied to do the same.

            Then having no other alternative the complainant has filed the petition of complaint with a prayer to pass an order directing the OP for returning the valuation of the pumping set in question along with installation charge and also to pay a Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty thousand) for harassment, mental pain and agony and other relief and reliefs.

           

 

The matter has been heard exparte.

            In view of the above stated pleadings following issues are framed.

Issues

1. Has the complainant any cause of action to file this case?
2. Is the case maintainable in the eye of law?
3. Is the complainant a consumer within the ambit of C.P Act 1986?
4. Is there any deficiency of service on the part of the OP?
5. Is the complainant entitled to get the relief as prayed for?
6. To what other relief or reliefs is the complainant entitled to get?

               Decision with reason.

All these issues are taken up together for convenience discussions and to avoid unnecessary repetitions.

It is the case of the complainant that he is a resident of Vill. Beluti within the District Birbhum and also under the jurisdiction of DCDRC, Birbhum and the OP is also running his business within the jurisdiction of this Commission at station road Sainthia, District Birbhum. The complainant purchased a new set of pumping materials for his submersible pump set at a consideration of Rs. 50,500/- (Fifty thousand five hundred) only along with of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand)  for installation charge. So, it is the claim of the complainant that he is a consumer under the Op.

It is alleged that the OP installed the materials in the submersible pump set of the complainant but it was defective as a result the complainant consulted a mechanic who told him that the pipes purchased by the complainant from the OP are/were defective and broken for which he submersible pump did not work properly and the complainant again purchased some materials to run the submersible pump properly at a consideration of  Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand)  more he requested the OP to change the defective pipes but they did not pay any heed to his request rather he threatened the complainant with dire consequence on 13/08/2019 from which it can be held by the Commission safely that the cause of action of filing of this case to the complainant arose on 13/08/2019.

In view of the discussion made above it can be said that the complainant has/had sufficient cause of action to file this case.

It is the further case of the complainant that even after several request from his end to the OP he (OP) did not change the defective pump set materials of the submersible pump of the complainant and threatened him with dire consequences rather it is the nobody’s case that the case is barred by any law, moreover it is the duty and responsibility of this Commission to look into the matter whether the case is maintainable in the eye of law or not on a close scrutiny of the materials and unchallenged evidence on record of the complainant and also the position of law it is crystal clear that the complainant filed the case within the period of limitation and he has/had sufficient cause of action to file this case. From which it is held by this Commission that the case is well maintainable in the eye of law.

Now let us see whether the complainant is a consumer within the ambit of law or not.

It has already been discussed above that the complainant purchased new set of pumping materials from the OP for his submersible pump set at a consideration Rs. 50,500/- (Fifty thousand five hundred)  along with installation charge Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) (as return from the photo copy of the voucher) but after installation of the new set of materials of pump set it is found that the submersible pump was not working properly thereafter on consultation with a expert mechanic the complainant came to now that the pipes which was purchased from the OP by the complainant was damaged and some were in broken condition.

Then the complainant repeatedly request the OP to replace the damage pipes and install the same in his submersible pump set but the OP denied him to replace the same. The statement of the complainant in support of his unchallenged testimony and also from the documents i.e. the voucher issued by the OP dated 13/08/2019 it is palpably clear that the complainant purchased the new set of materials i.e. pipes and other materials from the OP for his submersible pump at a consideration of Rs. 50,500/- (Fifty thousand five hundred) and along with installation charge of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand). Which proved that the complainant is/was a consumer under the OP on and from 13/08/2019 when he purchased the new set of materials for his submersible pump from the OP and the OP on refusal of the complaints request to replace the damaged of broken pipes which is supplied to him as a new set of materials caused deficiency of service on his part. Once again from the materials on record and unchallenged evidence of the complainant and also from the written argument as submitted by the Ld. Advocate of the complainant before this Commission it is palpably clear that the complainant is a consumer under the OP and there was sufficient deficiency of service on the part of the OP when he refused to replace the damaged materials supplied by him to the complainant as new set of materials for the submersible pump of the complainant and he in bound to compensate the same.

In view of the discussion made above this Commission is of opinion that the unchallenged evidence of the complainant could be able to prove his case that he (complainant) is a consumer under the OP and there is/was deficiency of service on the part of the OP as he did not replace the damaged materials supplied by him to the complainant and also threatened him with dire consequences from which it can safely be said by this Commission that the complainant entitled to get any relief as prayed for.

The case is sufficiently stamped. All the issues are thus decided favorably.

 

 

                                     

Hence, it is,

                                    O R D E R E D,

                                                            that the instant C.C. Case No. 6/2020 be and same is allowed on contest in exparte against the OP Sri Manik Chandra Das proprietor of Das Hardware Merchant and General Order Supplier.

The OP is directed to return the valuation of the damaged pipes amounting to Rs. 50,500/- (Fifty thousand five hundred) along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of this case till realization.

The OP is also directed to return the installation charge of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand)  to the complainant.

The OP is directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) for harassment and mental agony to the complainant.

The OP is directed to comply the decree as mentioned above within 45 days from this date of order indefault the complainant is entitled to get interest @ 6% p.a. of the entire decreetal amount from the date of default till realization.

If the OP failed to comply the decree within time then the complainant is at liberty to execute the same through court.

Let a copy of this order be given/handed over to the parties to this case free of cost.