Date of Filing: 29-05-2014 Date of Final Order: 27-11-2014
The instant complaint has been filed by one Sanat Sen U/S 12 of the C.P. Act 1986. The fact of case as enumerated from the record is that the Complainant intends to purchase some wooden furniture for his domestic use and gave an order to the O.P. The Complainant has given an order to supply the following wooden furniture as follows:
- Two Box Khats @ 6ft.X7ft. size each.
- Two English Khats @ 6ft.X7ft. size each.
- One Dressing Table cum Almirah @ 5.5ft.X4ft.X (12 ft.+ 14 ft.) size.
- One Dining Table with four chairs@ 5ft. X 30 inch. X 3ft. size.
- One Tea Table with four handle chairs @ 3 ft. X 22 inch X2 ft size.
The Complainant paid Rs. 55,000/- through five cheques during the year 2008-2009 to the Opposite Party as advance payment for purchasing the above mentioned furniture. After that the Complainant communicated several times to the O.P to get deliver of those furniture since 16.08.2008 and only for that purpose the Complainant expended Rs. 14,000/-. It is the case of the Complainant that the by receiving the advanced amount the Opposite Party promise to deliver the furniture within a very short period but failed. Surprisingly, on the same period the Opposite Party purchased some expensive articles for his personal use and trying to avoid shamelessly to give deliver the promised goods to the Complainant. The Opposite Party also gave his written consent in a meeting held on 01.09.2011 that he will deliver the said furniture at the Hoogly in two installments i. e. on 26.09.2011 & 29.10 2011 but the Opposite Party again failed to keep his promise. The Complainant suffered a lot due to the whimsical and unethical activities of the Opposite party and for which the Complainant sent a legal notice on 12.05.2012 to the Opposite Party for urgent delivery of his booked furniture within fourteen days. The Opposite Party again failed even after receiving the Legal Notice but on 06.06.2012 the Opposite party agreed to deliver two Box Khats and one English Khats and part advance money amounting to Rs. 39,000/- to the Complainant on 24.06.2012 and also issued a cheque bearing No. 003771 dated 10.07.2012 for Rs. 22,000/- as part payment. Surprisingly, the said cheque dishonoured on 11.08.2012 and the Complainant’s savings account was debited for Rs. 102/- for dishonored charge. After that the Complainant again sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party claiming dishonored amount with compensation but no fruitful result yet came out. The Complainant already filed the C.R. case No. 535/2012ed 15.11.2012 U/s 138 of N I Act against the Opposite Party before the Court of Ld. Second Judge, Hoogly Sadar, Chinsurah. The desire of the Complainant totally ruined due to the negligent act of the Opposite party which is tantamount to deficiency in service. Thus, finding no other alternative the Complainant has filed the present case seeking redress and relief(s) as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint.
In the instant case despite receiving the notice none appear on behalf of the Opposite Party for which the matter was heard in Ex-Parte.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
In the light of the contention of both parties, the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
- Is the Complainant is a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Has the Opposite Party any deficiency in service as alleged by the Complainant?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASON
Point No. 1
The Complainant intended to purchase some wooden furniture, paid certain amount to the O.P. for availing proper service in due time and the O.P. accepted the same. Thus, the relation of the Complainant with the O.P. so established from the record we are convinced to hold that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as per section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act.
Point No.2
The residence & Place of Business of the O.P. is within the district of Cooch Behar. The value of the case is within the limit of Rs.20,000,00/-. So, this Forum has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the instant case.
Point No. 3
We have gone through the record very carefully; peruse the entire documents and the Annexure marked as 1-6 in the record also heard the argument of the Complainant in full.
On giving a close look to Annexure 1, it is crystal clear that the Opposite Party had taken Rs. 55,000/- as an advance through six Nos. of cheques for supplying 15 numbers wooden furniture to the Complainant with an assurance to render proper service. There is proper signature of both parties as such acceptable, beyond any manner of doubt. It also appears from Annexure 2, that the Opposite Party promised in presence of two witness to make deliver of two English Cot, one Box Cot and a Dining Table with four Chairs from the booked furniture on 26.09.2011 and the remained item will deliver on 29.10,2011. It is pertinent point to mention that on 12.05.2012 the Complainant send a Legal Notice for supplying the furniture within fourteen days but to no good. Further, the Complainant bound to send notice on 06.09.2012 for his harassment and pecuniary loss due to dishonor of the cheque. The opposite party did not take any positive step even after receiving two legal notices. The Opposite Party did not come forward to contest the case and the allegation of the Complainant is corroborated with the Annexure marked as 1-6 and there is no single document to disbelieve.
The Complainant being a family head had given an order for some wooden furniture (made of Segun wood) for his Family comfort in the year 2008-2009 with payment of Rs. 55,000/- but till the middle of 2014 he did not receive any item of the booked furniture and his desire totally ruined. The Opposite party cannot evade his liability for non- delivery of the booked furniture even after repeated persuasion/ request as he already received certain amount as advance payment. Moreover, he issued a cheque in favour of the Complainant that was dishonored which also caused severe mental pain of the Complainant. Be that as it may, from the foregoing discussion it is crystal clear that the Opposite Party is badly failure to give service to his customer, which he promised. Further, the Complainant suffered mental pain and agony due to the negligence of the Opposite Party for which deficiency in service of the O.P. cannot be ruled out.
Point No. 4.
In the light of foregoing discussion and considering the materials to its entirety, we have no hesitation to say that the Complainant has been able to prove his case and entitled to get reasonable relief. Thus, the instant case succeeds on its merit.
ORDER
Therefore, it is ordered that the complaint do succeed and the same is allowed in Ex-parte with cost of Rs. 5000/-, directing the Opposite Party Shayamaprasad Das to pay the Complainant Rs. 39,000/- (partly advanced amount) with interest @8% from 10.01.2009 also Rs. 10,000/- for mental agony and harassment of the Complainant. The O.P. is further directed to pay the aforesaid amount within 60 days from the date of this order failure of which the O.P. shall have to pay Rs. 50/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
A plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied to the representative complainant by hand / Registered post free of cost A/D and also to the opposite party forthwith as per rules.
