DATE OF DISPOSAL: 18.06.2024
PER: SRI SATISH KUMAR PANIGRAHI, PRESIDENT
The fact of the case in brief is that the complainant has filed this Consumer complaint Under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Parties (in short O.Ps.) for redressal of his grievance before this Commission.
2. Brief fact of the complaint petition that, the complainant for his self employment has started one small unit in the name and style of SRS Enterprises at Panigrahipentho Sahi, Berhampur as per motivation of Opposite Party (in short O.P.). The complainant placed order of camphor tablet 1st and 2nd for Rs.33,475/-. The complainant deposits the same amount in two installments with the O.P. on 08.02.2021 and 09.02.2021 through IMPS in account of O.P. respectively. Accordingly the O.P. issued customized invoice bearing number 071 dated 08.02.2021 for Rs.32,100/- but after received of the amount towards camphor Rs.33,475/- the O.P. did not dispatched the materials to the complainant. On this act of the O.P., the complainant approached the O.P. over the phone and issued an advocates notice but all in vain. Being aggrieved, the complainant filed this complaint and prayed to direct the O.P. to refund of the money of Rs.33,475/- with interest @18% per annum from 09.02.2021, compensation of Rs.30,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.5000/- in the best interest of justice.
3. Admitting the case the commission issued notice to the Opposite Party but the notices returned to the Commission as per postal remark “Unclaimed”. Hence it is sufficient.
4. On the date of hearing the Commission heard from the Learned Counsel of the complainant and perused the complaint, evidence on affidavit, written argument and documents available on case record. On analysis of evidences adduced by the complainant in shape of affidavit, it is apparent that the O.P. should stickup with the oral agreement executed between the parties. But in the instant case the O.P. violated said agreement which tantamount to deficiency in services by not supplying the raw materials and caused inordinate delay and also undertaken unfair trade practice for not refunding the amount of Rs.33,475/- in the event of the non supply of materials. Due to such act of O.P. the complainant suffered and failed to collect his livelihood timely and to redess this matter incurred huge amount.
In view of the principles of law laid down in Polymat India Private Limited versus National Insurance Co. Ltd and others reported in AIR 2005 S.C. 286 the Commission allowed the complaint against the O.P.
Resultantly the Opposite Party is directed to refund Rs.33,475/- with 9% interests from 09.02.2021 together with litigation costs of Rs.5000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of non-compliance of the order, the entire dues shall carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum and the complainant is at liberty to recover the said amount from the O.Ps in accordance to the Section 71/72 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
This case is disposed of accordingly.
The Judgment be uploaded on the www.confonet.nic.in for the perusal of the parties.
A certified copy of this Judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
The file is to be consigned to the record room along with a copy of this Judgment.
Pronounced on 18.06.2024.
