In the Court of the
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Unit -I, Kolkata,
8B, Nelie Sengupta Sarani, 4th Floor, Kolkata-700087.
CDF/Unit-I/Case No.144/2012
1) Md. Jahir Abbas,
Vill-Alaquilia, P.O. Satbhaiya, P.S. Kashipur,
Dist. South 24 Parganas, Pin-700135. ---------- Complainant
---Versus---
1) The Manager , Authorized Person Representing
SREI – Sahaj-e-Village Ltd.,
Plot No.43, 10/B, Topsia Main Road,
Mirania Garden, P.S. Topsia, Kolkata-46. ---------- Opposite Party
Present : Sri Sankar Nath Das, President.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
Order No. 12 Dated 25-04-2013.
Smt. Sharmi Basu, Member
The case of the complainant in short is that complainant, being an unemployed educated young chap, for his self employment applied to SREI (o.p), after going through advertisement of o.p. for their establishment of Common Service Centre (CSC), where multi various information / services would be provided for selection and the complainant received Village Level Entrepreneurship (VLE) from the District Co-ordinator, South 24 Parganas on behalf of o.p. vide letter dt.3.11.08 and he was requested by o.p. to deposit at least Rs.40,000/- or maximum Rs.1,60,000/- by demand draft.to the office of o.p. The complainant deposited Rs.2000/- on 3.11.08 vide money receipt no.9234 and then Rs.38,000/- through demand draft dt.14.11.08 and he applied for loan to bank for the balance amount i.e. Rs.1,20,000/- and accordingly the sum of Rs.1,20,000/- was sanctioned in his favour and complainant issued VLE registration on 4.3.09 and an agreement for the VLE was signed on 12.12.08 between the complainant and o.p. The agreement contains the rules, regulations, terms and conditions in detail. Thereafter, two laptops and associate accessories and VSAT for internet connection were supplied by o.p. to the complainant. But due to some mechanical problem internet service was not functioning on and from 25.4.10. and complainant made complaint on 30.4.10 to the o.p. and thereafter, repeated requests were made by complainant to the o.p. for redressal of his dispute but all in vain. For this inaction of the o.p., complainant has suffered irreparable loss and he has no alternative but to file the instant case with the prayer contained in the petition of complaint.
O.p. had entered their appearance in this case by filing w/v and denied all the material allegations labeled against them and prayed for dismissal of the case. Ld. Lawyer of o.p. in the course of argument interalia stated that the case has not maintainable as TMS which was availed by complainant is completely commercial as well as social development scheme which would form and effective network to access the rural markets offering tremendous business and development opportunities and ld. lawyer of o.p. referred the order copy of a complaint case passed by CDRF, Nadia where the Ld. Forum has been pleased to dismiss the similar type of case for ‘commercial purpose’.
Decision with reasons:-
We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, evidence and documents in particular. It appears from the record that admittedly complainant for running a business entered into an agreement with o.p. company and he paid the required consideration amount partly by himself and rest through bank loan. This is not at all denied by o.p. that complainant was deprived from the required service. From record it appears that o.p. could not serve their duty in relation to required internet connection and the o.p. did not take necessary action to redress the dispute of the complainant so that the complainant was unable to run his business, which was exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.
This is needed to mention that Ld. Advocate for sole o.p. has raised a point that Ld. C.D.R.F., Nadia has been pleased to dismiss a similar typre of case on the ground of ‘commercial purpose’. In this regard we are of the opinion that the case referred by the Ld. Advocate for the o.p. is not similar with the instant case, Secondly, it is settled principal of law that any decision of any C.D.R.F. is not finding upon other Fora. Moreover, in the instant case the complainant, being an unemployed educated young person, with intension to start a business only for earning his livelihood and as per Sention 2(i)(d)(ii) of the COPRA, 1986, the complainant is ‘consumer’.
The o.p. in any manner has failed to substantiate that they are not liable for their aforesaid inaction and it is beyond doubt that o.p. could not serve their service, for which o.p. was duty bound and we are strongly of the opinion that o.p. is liable for inaction and also deficient in rendering service towards the complainant / consumer.
This is also pertinent to mention that complainant has to suffer irreparable loss and injury due to deficiency in service of the o.p. and being a young unemployed educated fellow he was started business, with the tie up with o.p. for his livelihood with great hope in his mind to be financially established in near future but due to inaction and latches of o.p. he has to fall in acute financial crisis and though he could run his business but he has to repay the loan amount to the concerned bank, which he has to take for the business in question. Therefore, we are of the opinion that complainant is eligible to get compensation from the o.p. for their deficiency in rendering service and the complainant is eligible to get relief.
Hence, ordered,
That the case is allowed on contest with cost against the o.p. O.p. is directed to pay to the complainant the total investment money amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- (Rupees one lakh sixty thousand) only and is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only for harassment and metnal agony and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) only within 45 days from the date of communication of this order, i.d. Rs.200/- (Rupees two hundred) only per day shall be payable after the stipulated period till full and final realization of awarded amount out of which Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) only per day is payable to complainant and Rs.100/- (Rupees one hundred) only per day is payable to the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Complainant is at liberty to file execution case before this Forum in case of non-execution of the aforesaid order in its entirety within the stipulated period under the provision of COPRA, 1986.
Supply certified copy of this order to the parties free of cost.
