DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 70 of 2020

 

 

Sri Amarjit Sau,

S/O.Sri Ananda Sau,

Resident of Opposite of MG Bazar Fire Service,

MG Bazar Agartala, 

Dist.-West Tripura, Pin No.799001….........….....................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

 

Sri Akashdeep Sarkar,

PROP OF NE MEDIA COM 24 X 7, 

At Branch 1-LN Bari Opp. of Ramthakur Ashram, 

Banamalipur, Agartala-799001 & Branch 2 – Ashram 

Chowmuhani, Agartala Tripura(W).............................................. Opposite Parties.

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

For the Complainant : In-person. 

 

For the O.P. : None appeared. 

 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 22/02/2021.

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Amarjit Sau, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining negligence & deficiency of service by the O.P. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant is providing services such as Building Planning, Surveying, Structural Designing, technical supervision of Residential and as well as commercial Building & etc. The Complainant has paid Rs.6,500/- via ref. no.IMPS-018820327366 for outdoor Hoardings & Advertisement purpose on 06th July, 2020 and came to the final conversation under the witness of Saheb Debnath that the O.P. will provide the Hoarding service within a week i.e. w.e.f. 06/07/2020. Thereafter the Complainant has taken an extra day from 06th July, 2020 for rectifying the Design of Flex and the Opposition will arrange the structure for Flex within this time and Complainant has mailed the rectified Design of Flex to Opposition party within 10th July of 2020 A.D. The Complainant has also accordingly agreed on the extended date provided by Opposite party for getting the hoarding service but the Opposition was failed to provide hoarding services. The Complainant has occurred a huge loss in his business for not getting the Hoarding services as it was the Working season and Complainant has demand to return the sum of money of Rs.6,500/- which was paid for Hoarding purpose. The Complainant has also requested several times via wats app to return the paid Advance money of Rs.6,500/- and also said to O.P. after few days that if not returned then Complainant will file a case against the O.P. but although O.P. did not pay. 

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.Ps.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice has filed the instant complaint before this Commission claiming Rs.2,00,000/-(Two lacs) as deficiency of service and as compensation for causing mental agony, trauma and harassment  and also cost of litigation from the O.P.  

Hence this case. 

 

2. On admission of the complaint notice are issued upon the O.P. The O.P. also did not turned up because he is not interested in the case and it was ordered to proceed ex-pare against the O.P. vide order dated 16/12/2020 only. 

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

 

3. Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 3 documents comprising 4 sheets under a Firisti dated 22/09/2019. The documents are namely Bill copy of Bill No.026 & 027, Bank Statement of payment copy & Complainant ID details.  On identification the  documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. 

    No evidence is adduced by the O.P.  it is an ex-parte proceedings. 

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    Based on the contentions raised by the Complainant in the pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the following points are cropped up for determination:

        (I) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. towards the Complainant and have also indulged in unfair trade practices?

(II) Whether the complainant is entitled to get  any compensation/relief as prayed for?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                  

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  We have heard arguments of Learned Counsel of the Complainant. 

          Learned Advocate for the Complainant submitted that within the statutory period written objection / written version was not filed by the O.Ps. Thereafter, the O.Ps. remained absent and accordingly the case was proceeded exparte vide order dated 05/11/2019 and court can presume about the truthfulness of the Complainants case. Moreover, exhibited documents also supports the claim of the complainant. The Complainant was cheated by the O.Ps. and the conduct of the O.Ps. amounts to unfair trade practice. So, the Complainant is entitled to get suitable compensation from the O.Ps.                            

               On perusal of the documentary evidence, we found that the Complainant booked for U.K. Tour namely, 'Highlights of U.K. Summer, 2019 for 5 days 4 nights through the Agartala office of Cox & Kings Ltd. i.e. O.P. No.2 and the Complainant in total made the payment of Rs.2,78,500/-(Rupees Two Lac Seventy Eight Thousand Five Hundred) and he was supposed to perform his journey from 24/5/2019 along with his wife and minor son. But unfortunately, he fell ill and he was admitted in the ILS, Hospital on 08/5/2019 to 10/5/2019. Thereafter, he was shifted to Kolkata at Sanjibani Nursing Home and he had undergone an operation. It is also found that the O.P. No.2 was informed everything and also photographs were sent to them. From the evidence of the Complainant, it is also found that the O.P. No.2 requested the O.P. No.1 for giving the Complainant waiver on normal cancellation charges but on 20/5/2019 the O.P. No.1 replied back stating that they cannot do anything in this regard. From the evidence it is found that on 24/5/2019 the wife of the Complainant sent an Email to the O.P. No.2 asking them the purpose and reasons of charging Rs.70,000/- as cancellation per person. From the evidence we found that the O.Ps. refunded only Rs.26,500/- and the O.Ps. did not furnish the details of cancellation charges. 

          At the time of argument when Learned Counsel of the Complainant was asked to show the provision or the agreement / contract in respect of cancellation charges or terms of cancellation, Learned Counsel failed to show any papers about the agreement contract. From the exhibited documents namely reply of notice dated 10/06/2019 by the O.P. No.1, Dated 11/06/2019 we found that the O.P. No.1 in reply informed the Lawyer of the Complainant that they are conducting the necessary enquiry from their concerned department and they shall revert to the Advocate of the Complainant. But thereafter no communication have been made according to the Complainant. The above documentary evidence clearly shows that the conduct of the O.Ps. amounts to deficiency of service.      

            From the exhibited documents namely the Email sent from Sanjib Kumar Banerjee dated 25/05/2019 addressed to Mr. Debnath, it is found that the O.P. No.1 by that Email informed the Complainant about the cancellation charges and they mentioned that cancellation charges are there in everything like Airlines ticket and cancellation charges are there in every item. On appreciation of the evidence of the Complainant, we found that the Complainant supposed to avail (Foreign Tour) his journey on 24/5/2019 and he became ill soon before the date of journey and requested reschedule of the journey. So that is why the tour programme was cancelled by the O.Ps. In this regard, we cannot say that there is/was any fault on the part of the O.Ps. as because it was not possible on the part of the Complainant to avail the journey on the date fixed as major operation of the Complainant was done at Kolkata and also he was not fit for availing journey. But we find that there was deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps. in respect of  not furnishing the details about the cancellation charges. 

 

6.          So, we are in the opinion that the Complainant has been able to prove his case U/S. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in respect of deficiency of service by the O.Ps. for not providing details of cancellation charges.       

     Hence, the Complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.10,000/- for causing deficiency in service in respect of failure of furnishing details of the cancellation charges. The Complainant is also entitled to get litigation costs of Rs.5,000/-.

Therefore in total the Complainant is entitled to get Rs.15,000/-(Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) only. Both the O.Ps. are directed to make the payment either jointly or severely to the Complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of this judgment and if the O.Ps. fail to comply the order in that case it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full with effect from the date of judgment.  

Accordingly, the Complaint is partly allowed. The Complainant is directed to sent a certified copy of the judgment to the address of the O.Ps. by registered post within 7 days after receiving it for information of the O.Ps. and also for compliance. 

 

 

    Announced.