DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                         C.C.NO. 51 OF 2022

                                                                                              Date of Filing: 18.10.2022

                                  Date of Order:  07.02.2023

Sri Sunil Kumar Mohanty

S/o Late Sarat Kumar Mohanty

At-Phulbani Sahi

PO- Phulbani

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

Versus.

Sri Amiya Swain,

S/O- Late Sridhar Swain

AT/PO- Khandaita,

PS- Sadar

District-Cuttack                                 ……….….. Opp. Party.

Present: Sri Purna Chandra Mishra    - President.

                             Sri Sudhakar Senapothi          - Member.

For the Complainant:  Self

For O.P.                     : Expartee

JUDGEMENT

Mr. Purna Chandra Mishra, President.

            The complainant Sunil Kumar Mohanty has filed this case alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P for not providing him with money receipt after payment of full and final consideration praying there in for direction to the O.P to pay compensation for mental harassment and the loss sustained by him.

1.Brief fact leading to the case is that the complainant is the owner of vehicle bearing registration No. OR02AW9695.The vehicle was taken to the garage of the O.P for repair. After completion of the repair the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 50,855/- towards the full and final consideration towards the repairing cost. Even though the complainant requested the O.P to provide him with the money receipt the O.P flatly denied to issue the money receipt for which he has filed this case before this Commission for the reliefs as discussed above.

2.         The Complainant in support of his case has filed a copy of the settlement arrived between them on dt. 08.03.2022 addressed to the OIC, Sadar PS, copy of the estimate for Rs. 50,855/-, copy of the authorization given by Shri Abanta Kumar Pattnaik, copy of RC Book of vehicle No. OR02AW9695. The complainant has also filed his evidence in shape of affidavit.

3.The only point for adjudication in this case is whether the Opposite Party has taken a sum of Rs. 40,000/- from the complainant without repairing his vehicle and whether the Opposite Party has caused deficiency in service for not providing him with the money receipt in acknowledgement of the receipt of the amount.

4.         It is seen from the documents on record that the complainant has filed a copy of the settlement dt. 08.03.2022 wherein it has been mentioned that the vehicle was repaired in the garage of the Opposite Party bearing Registration No. OR02AW9695 and a sum of Rs. 50,000/- was billed against the repairs carried out in the vehicle and being dissatisfied, he had gone to the Police Station where, he has paid a sum of Rs. 41,000/- to the Opposite Party and received back the vehicle. It is also seen from the repairing bill prepared by hand that a sum of Rs. 50,855/- has been billed against the repairing charges. The complainant in his evidence filed in shape of affidavit has clearly stated that the vehicle has not been repaired and the Opposite Party without removing the defects has provided him with a handmade bill and received Rs. 41000/- from him and did not provide money receipt as per the provisions of law. This part of the evidence remains unchallenged, unrebutted and uncontroverted.

5. Notice was sent to the Opposite Party by Registered Post vide postal receipt no. 827997699071 dt.21.10.2022 in the correct address with postage pre-paid which was duly received by the Opposite Party. In spite of notice, the Opposite Party preferred not to appear nor to challenge the allegations raised against him in any manner for which it is deemed to have been admitted. Non-repair of the vehicle and non-issuance of money receipt, after receipt of the amount, amounts to not only deficiency in service but also unfair trade practice. As the Opposite Party caused deficiency in service and resorted to unfair trade practice leading to harassment to the complainant he is liable to compensate the petitioner for the loss and harassment caused to the complainant and hence, the Order.

ORDER

            The complaint petition is allowed expartee against the Opposite Party. The Opposite Party is directed to refund a sum of Rs. 41,000/- to the complainant which is received by him on 08.03.2022 with interest @ 12% per annum till it is actually paid to the complainant. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1, 00000/- for causing deficiency in service and practicing unfair trade practice with the petitioner and pay a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards cost of litigation. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2, 00000/- as fine for not providing the money receipt in the prescribed manner payable to State Consumer Welfare Fund. The order as to cost and compensation and fine is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of communication of the order, failing which it shall carry interest @ 18% per annum from the date of order till it is actually paid to the complainant.

                                                         Computerized & corrected by me.

         I Agree

     MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

Pronounced in the open Commissioner today on this 7th day of February 2023 in the presence of the parties.  

     MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT