DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI.

C.C. NO. 30/2023

Date of Filing: 30.01.2023

Date of Order:  31.07.2023

Smt. Sudeshna Beheradalai,

W/O Dayananda Beheradalai,

At- Mahasing Purunasahi

PO- Mahasing

District - Kandhamal                          ………………….    Complainant.

Versus.

1. Smt. Minakhi Patra,

W/O Lingaraj Patra

At- Mahasing Nuasahi

PO- Mahasing

Dist- Kandhamal

2. Ratnamani Nayak,

At/Po- Raikia,

Dist- Kandhamal

3. Sri Amira Nayak

Maa Prativa Enterprises,

At/PO-Munda Sahi, Balliguda,

District – Kandhamal.…………………..Opp. Parties.

Present:      Sri Purna Chandra Mishra   - President

                   Sri Sudhakar Senapothi                  - Member

For the Complainant:      Self

For the O.Ps:        Self

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra. President

          Complainant Smt. Sudeshna Beheradalai has filed this case u/s 35 of the CP Act-2019 alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties for not providing her the machine in spite of full payment of the cost of the machine and praying therein for refund of the money paid towards the cost of machine with interest.

1. Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) to the Opposite Parties for providing her with a Surf making machine for a consideration of Rs. 20,000/-(Twenty Thousand only). The amount was paid in full. But after receipt of the amount, the Opposite Parties did not provide her with the machine and made her run to them on several occasions for which she filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.
2. That after receipt of notice, the OP No. 2 appeared in person and OP No. 1 and 3 did not appear. Even though the OP No. 2 appeared after receipt of notice, she preferred not to challenge the allegations raised by the complainant nor filed any written reply to the allegations. Therefore the Commission proceeded to dispose of the case on the basis of the merit of the case.
3. On perusal of record, it is seen that the OP No. 2 have received a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) from the complainant on 21.01.2021 vide Receipt No. 609. She fairly admitted during the course of hearing that the amount has been received by her even though receipt has been provided to the complainant. The OP No. 2 is the person who has received the amount and has signed in the money receipt. So, it is crystal clear from the documents and from the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the OP No.1 and 2 that the OPs have received the money from the complainant by forging out a conspiracy among themselves and jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service to the complainant and liable to compensate the complainant for the loss and harassment sustained by her and hence the order.

O R D E R

          The complaint petition is allowed on contest against the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties are jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service and harassment to the complainant. The Opposite Party No. 2 is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 20,000/- (Twenty Thousand only) to the complainant with interest @ 12% per annum from 21.01.2021 till it is actually refunded to the complainant. The Opposite Parties are further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten Thousand only) each to the complainant for deficiency in service and harassment and a sum of Rs. 3000/- (Three Thousand only) each towards cost of litigation. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of order failing which the order as to cost and compensation shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from the date of order till it is actually paid to the complainant.

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 31^st July 2023 in the presence of the parties.