DATE OF FILING : 30.03.2015.
DATE OF S/R : 13.05.2015.
DATE OF FINAL ORDER : 24.11.2015.
Sri Bharat Bera
son of late Santosh Bera,
residing at village & P.O. Dihimondalghat, P.S. Shyampur,
District Howrah.……………………………………………………… COMPLAINANT.
Shri Jayanta Pal,
son of Sri Paresh Pal,
proprietor of M/S. Gayatri Bricks
of village Aaima, P.O. Gohalberia, P.S. Shyampur,
District Howrah,
PIN 711315. …………………………………………………………OPPOSITE PARTY.
P R E S E N T
Hon’ble President : Shri B. D. Nanda, M.A. ( double ), L.L.M., WBHJS.
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Jhumki Saha.
Hon’ble Member : Shri A.K. Pathak.
F I N A L O R D E R
- This is an application U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 filed by the petitioner, Bharat Bera, against the o.p., Jayanta Pal, praying for a direction upon the o.p., Jayanta Pal, to supply 25000 pieces of bricks to the petitioner immediately without further delay and to pay a sum of Rs. 80,000/- as compensation.
- The case of the petitioner is that the o.p., is proprietor of a brick field namely M/S. Gayatri Bricks in the year 2012. The petitioner placed an order before the o.p. to supply him 25000 bricks and paid a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- on 03.4.2012. The o.p. did not supply a single brick even though the petitioner requested him to do so. The petitioner sent legal notice on 18.3.2015 and then filed this case.
- The o.p. contested the case by filing a written version denying the material allegations made in the petition and submitted that the case is neither maintainable in law nor in facts and the petitioner has no cause of action to file this case and this is a false and harassing one. He further submitted that there was no order placed by the petitioner before him and there was no agreement between the parties for supplying the bricks and the petitioner paid no amount to him and thus there is no question of deficiency in service on his part. The petitioner is not a consumer under the C.P. Act, 1986 and filed this case to put pressure on the o.p. for getting undue advantage and so the case be dismissed.
4. Upon pleadings of parties the following points arose for determination :
- Is the case maintainable in its present form ?
- Whether the petitioner has any cause of action to file the case ?
- Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P. ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief as prayed for ?
DECISION WITH REASONS :
5. All the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity for discussion and to skip of reiteration. In support of his case, the petitioner filed affidavit as well as one letter written by the o.p. to him dated 04.04.2015 wherefrom it is found that his brick factory was closed and he would refund the money taken from the petitioner. The petitioner also field one written argument dated 03.04.2012 wherefrom it is noticed that the o.p. agreed to supply 25000 bricks to the petitioner at a price of Rs. 1,25,000/- and he received Rs. 1,25,000/- and also agreed that if he was not able to supply bricks and then he would transfer 60% share of his brick field to the petitioner. The documents along with affidavit proved the case of the petitioner that he paid Rs. 1,25,000/- for purchase of 25000 bricks from the o.p. and besides simple denial by the o.p. in the written version. There is no other evidence coming before the Forum from the o.p. to disbelieve the case of the petitioner. On the other hand, the case of the petitioner is well proved by the agreement between the petitioner and the o.p. and also the letter dated 04.04.2015 written by the o.p. to the petitioner wherein the o.p. agreed to refund the money at the earlier opportunity.
In view of above this Forum keeping in mind the submissions of ld. counsel for both sides on the above case and also on scrutiny of the cases of the parties and oral and documentary evidences come to the finding that the petitioner has been successfully in proving his case and the o.p. is liable to refund the sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- to the petitioner.
Thus, the case of the petitioner succeeds.
Court fee paid is correct.
Hence,
O R D E R E D
That the C. C. Case No. 128 of 2015 ( HDF 128 of 2015 ) be and the same is allowed on contest with costs of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the o.p. to the petitioner.
The petitioner is entitled to get a refund of Rs. 1,25,000/- and the o.p. is directed to pay the above sum along with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner within 30 days from the date of this order failing the whole amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- would carry interest @ 9% p.a. after the expiry of the period of appeal and also the petitioner would be at liberty to put the order in execution if the final order is not complied by the o.p. within the stipulated time mentioned in the order.
Supply the copies of the order to the parties, free of costs.
DICTATED & CORRECTED
BY ME.
( B. D. Nanda )
President, C.D.R.F., Howrah.
