West Bengal

Bankura

CC/20/2023

Sri Soumitra Karmakar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Bibhas Chakraborty, ( Managing Director Of Chakraborty Food Products) - Opp.Party(s)

Sumanta Mishra

11 Jan 2024

ORDER

IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 20/2023

        Date of Filing:   22/02/2023

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                            Ld. President.      

2. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member. 

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Sumanta Mishra

For the O.P.:  None

Complainant  

1. Sri Soumitra Karmakar, S/O Jitendra Karmakar, Sakim Fasidanga, P.O_, P.S. + Dist- Bankura Pin Code- 722101, W.B.
2. Sri Bidyut Sannigrahi, S/O Sattyabhusan sannigrahi, Sakim Sarenga, P.O_, P.S.- Sarenga,

Dist- Bankura Pin Code- 722150, W.B.

Opposite Party 

1.Sri Bibhas Chakraborty, ( Managing Director Of Chakraborty Food Products), Sakim Netaji Colony, Baranagar, P.O.- Noapara, ( Opposite of Baranagar P.S.) , Kolkata -700090, W.B.

Order No.12,

Dt.11-01-2024

Both the complainants are present in person represented by Advocate.

The case is fixed for Ex-parte hearing.

No step is taken by the O.P.

It appears from the record that notice was sent to the O.P. by Speed Post but the same was returned unserved due to insufficient address as per Postal remark. Thereafter notice was sent to the O.P. through Electronic device i.e. e-mail from this Office which was duly received on May, 2015. Apart from this prior to the filing of the case Lawyer’s notice was sent to the same address of the O.P. which was received by the O.P.  and the Advocate’s reply letter was also sent from the same address as mentioned in the petition of complaint. The Commission is of the view that the O.P. is avoiding service and hence the case is taken up for Ex-parte hearing.

The Complainant’s case is that both the Complainants are engaged in Trading business and Complainant No.1 has booked order with O.P. for supply of snacks for Rs.1,35,072/- and Rs.1,18,188/- and bills were issued by the O.P. on 31/08/2022 and 19/10/2022 respectively. Similarly Complainant No.2 booked order with O.P. for supply of snacks for Rs.46,950/- and bill was accordingly issued by the O.P. on 22/09/2022. After delivery of the food products both the Complainant found that it is not fit for sale as it is completely damaged and the Complainants could not sell of the same to their customers and as such it is lying in their custody as unsold. The matter was reported to the O.P. verbally and thereafter by serving Lawyer’s Notice as aforesaid and the reply of Lawyer’s notice dated: 10/02/2023 shows that the O.P. has not raised any dispute with regard to the supply and delivery of the food products but denied the allegation with regard to the damaged condition of the supplied product.                                                                                                                

                                                                                                                                                                                     Contd……p/2

                                                                                                                           

Page: 2

Food products being perishable items it is the duty of the O.P./Seller to immediately respond to the notice of the Complainants and if necessary to take measure for replacement of the products upon physical inspection but nothing has been done by the O.P.  Mere denial will not establish regarding low quality of the products supplied to the Complainant unless supporting evidence is produced before the Commission to substantiate the stand of the O.P. But the O.P. preferred not to contest the case by filing any written version least real facts will come out.

Prima facie case of both the Complainants is supported by the petition of Complaint and documents on record and the affidavit in chief tendered on their behalf. Both the Complainants are entitled to get the relief as prayed for.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is allowed Ex-parte but without cost.

O.P. is directed to pay to the Complainant No.1 Rs.2,53,260/- (Rs.1,35,072/- + Rs.1,18,188/-) and to the Complainant No.2 Rs.46,950/- with compensation of Rs.5,000/- to each Complainant within one month from this date in default law will take its own course.

On payment of the decretal amount within the stipulated period the O.P. will get back return delivery of the entire products lying in the custody of both the Complainatns.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.

                                                                        

 ____________________                _________________         

HON’BLE   PRESIDENT           HON’BLE MEMBER