SMT. BANDANA ROY, PRESIDENT
Shortly stated the case of the complainant is that the OP no. 1 is the Proprietor and OP no. 2 is the Manager of the Janani Brick Field. The complainant placed an order for supply of 15000 No 1 special bricks and out of good faith he deposited entire cost of Rs. 84,000/- to the OP no 2 on 15th 02.11.2014 as full value of the bricks at the rate of Rs. 5600/- per thousand. The OPs assured the complainant that the said bricks will be delivered to the complainant within Falgun 1421. The Ops issued a receipt acknowledging the receipt of the amount. On 13.02.2015the OPs sent 4000 bricks of very poor quality. The complainant protested and then the OPs send another lot of 4000 special bricks on 26.03.2015 and promised that he would deliver remaining 7000 bricks of special No 1 quality by May 2015. But in spite of several reminders the Ops did not deliver the remaining 7000 bricks. On 23.12.2017the complainant gave the last reminder for delivery of the said bricks but without any result. Ultimately the complainant purchased the brick from others and completed construction of his house.
Hence, the instant case with the prayers as made in the complaint petition on the allegation of deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.
The OPs appeared and contested the case by filing a single written version. This OPs prayed for dismissal of the case as non maintainable under various provisions of law.
The specific case of the OP is that they received Rs. 84,000/- from the complainant for supply of 15000 No 1 special bricks and they have already supplied the said bricks in Falgun 1421. So there is no cause of action to file this complaint which should be dismissed outright.
In the aforesaid circumstance this Ops have prayed for dismissal of the instant complaint.
Point to be considered in this case is whether the case is maintainable and (2) whether Complainant is entitled to the relief(s) sought for by the complainant.
Decision with reasons
Both the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of convenience.
We have carefully perused the affidavit of the complainant, the written version, affidavit-in-chief filed by the complainant and the questionnaires and reply thereto filed by the parties. Heard the submission of both the parties in full. Considered.
The subject matter of this complaint is that in spite of receiving advance money of Rs. 84,000/- from the complainant for 15000 bricks, the OPs have delivered only 8000 bricks and they avoided the claim of complainant for supplying remaining 7000/-bricks. On the other hand, the OPs have asserted that they have already supplied the stipulated number of bricks to the complainant.
To prove his case the complainant has filed the money receipt issued by the OPs acknowledging receipt of Rs. 84000/- for supply of 15000/- No.1 special bricks.
On perusal of the same we find that Ashish Pahari, the OP No. 2 as Manager of the OP no.1 received Rs. 84,000/- from the complainant for supply of 15000 Special no.1 bricks at the rate of Rs.5600/- per thousand. The receipt is dated 15.07.2021. On the reverse of the said receipt it is written “Paid 1 No. Special 8000” Which may indicate that total 8000 Nos. of bricks might have been supplied.
The complainant filed affidavit in-chief for himself and also filed affidavit in-chief of another witness Narayan Chadnra Das as PW-2. In respect of both these witnesses, the OPs filed questionnaires but from the replies thereto, we find nothing inconsistent with the complaint petition. The OPs failed to counter the claim of the complainant by the cross-examination that they supplied only 8000 nos. of bricks not the entire 15000 bricks.
The OPs have claimed that they have already supplied all the 15000 bricks to the complainant, but to substantiate such assertion they failed to produce any cogent evidence either oral or documentary by way producing the delivery man or lorry/vehicle etc by which the bricks had been supplied. They could also file the counter foil of the receipt showing delivery of all the bricks or receipt by the complainant acknowledging receipt of all the bricks.
Under such circumstances, considering the document and evidence of the PW 1 and 2, we can presume that the complainant has been successful in proving his case and he is entitled to get the reliefs as OP could not rebut the case of the complainant by producing any cogent and reliable evidence.
The complainant has prayed for refund of value of 7000 bricks ie Rs. 39,200/- Rs. 50,000/-for harassment and Rs. 10,000/- for litigation cost.
In view of the above discussion we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get back Rs. 39,200/- as value of the 7000 bricks and compensation of Rs. 5000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 2000/- in the instant case.
Both the points are answered accordingly in favour of the complainant.
Hence, it is
O R D E R E D
That CC/ 27 of 2018 be and the same is allowed on contest against both the OPs.
The OPs are jointly and severally directed to pay the complainant an amount of Rs. 39,200/-, compensation of Rs. 5000/- along with litigation cost of Rs. 3,000/- within one month from the date of this order, failing which an interest @ Rs 10 % per annum shall be imposed upon the OPs till full satisfaction of the awarded amount.
The complainant will be at liberty to put the decree into execution in case the Ops fail to comply the order as above.
Let copy of the judgment be supplied to all the parties free of cost.
