DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,

 KOLKATA-700 0144

      C.C. CASE NO. __108_ _ OF ___2017

DATE OF FILING :_24.8.2017         DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:  4.10.2018

Present                 :   President       :   Ananta Kumar Kapri

                                 Member(s)    :    Subrata Sarker   

COMPLAINANT   :    Prodyut Deb Barman, 254, Masterpara, P.O + P.S Baruipur, Kolkata – 144.

•  VERSUS  -

O.P/O.Ps                    : Shri Birja Nandan Gupta, Owner of LOKNATH  ESTATE  &  EXPORT PVT. LTD.  Vill. Gabberia, P.O Dosatina, P.S Bishnupur, Dist. South 24-Parganas, Pin-743503.

_______________________________________________________________________

                                                J  U  D  G  M  E  N  T

Sri Ananta Kumar  Kapri, President

                This is a complaint lodged under section 12 of the C.P Act, 1986 by the complainant ,alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.

                 The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.

                  On 13.3.2017, the complainant booked 2000 Fly Ash Bricks  @Rs.6500/- per thousand to be supplied by the O.P and as advance payment, Rs.4000/- was given to the O.P by the complainant. But no supply of bricks was made by the O.P as yet. So, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P, the complainant has prayed for refund of the money paid to the O.P and also for compensation etc. Hence, this case.

                Denying all the allegations of the complainant, the O.P has filed written statement ,wherein it is mainly stated by him that he neither knows the complainant, nor was any monetary transaction made between him and the complainant. The complaint is a frivolous and vexatious one and, therefore, should be dismissed in limini.

                Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

1.        Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged in the complaint?
2.       Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
3.  

EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES

Both the parties have filed evidence on affidavit and the same are kept in the record after consideration.

DECISION WITH REASONS

Point no.1 & 2 :

               It is the allegation of the complainant that he entered into a contract with the O.P and the O.P agreed thereby to supply 2000 Fly Ash Bricks from his factory @ Rs.6500/- per thousand to the complainant and the complainant paid Rs.4000/- as advance payment of the price of the bricks to the O.P.

              The O.P has denied that such an agreement was ever made between him and the complainant.

             To prove his case, one important document has been filed by the complainant and this document is nothing but a copy of the money receipt issued by the factory of the O.P. This money receipt bears the seal of “LOKNATH ESTATE & EXPORT PVT.LTD.” which belongs to none but the O.P. It is further seen from the receipt that it was issued by one A Mondal who is the Manager of the O.P. The O.P has filed written statement ,but nowhere in that statement he denies that A. Mondal was Manager of his factory. That apart, this money receipt has not also been specifically denied by the O.P in his written version. If a particular fact is not specifically denied by the O.P in the written version, the said fact is considered to be admitted in Law. Regards being had to this position of Law, we feel no difficulty to say that the money receipt has remained unchallenged and it goes to help the version of the complainant that he paid Rs.4000/- to the O.P for purchasing bricks from his factory.

              It is the evidence of the complainant that bricks have not been supplied as yet to him. In the circumstances, the O.P is found guilty for deficiency in service for not supplying the bricks to the complainant in terms of the agreement. On the other hand, the complainant is found entitled to refund of the money paid by him to the O.P.

               In the consequence, the case succeeds.

               Hence,

ORDERED

             That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P with a cost of Rs.5000/- to be paid by the O.P.

            O.P is directed to pay back Rs.4000/- to the complainant with punitive interest @10% p.a thereon since the date of payment i.e 13.3.2017 to the date of full realization thereof, within a month of this order ,failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order through the instrumentality of this Forum.

    Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.   

                                                                                                                   President

I / We agree

                                                          Member

Dictated and corrected by me

                       President