DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 29 of 2020

 

 

Sri Pritam  Deb,

S/O.Sri Habul Deb, 

Resident of West Joynagar, Dashamighat,

P.O.-Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala, PIN-799001,

Dist.-West Tripura, Agartala….......................................................................Complainant.

 

 

 

 

-VERSUS-

 

 

 

1. Sri Malin Debnath,

Proprietor of Joy Ram Grill Factory,

Ramnagar Road No.4 Last Point,

Near Masjid Agartala, P.S.-West Agartala,

P.O.-Agartala, Pin-799002,

Dist.-West Tripura..................................................................................... Opposite Party.

 

 

 

 

     __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

 

 

SMT. DR. BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 

  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

 

 

 

C O U N S E L

 

 

 

For the Complainant : Sri Mridul Kanti Arya,

  Advocate.

 

 

For the O.P. : None appeared – Ex-parte. 

 

 

JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON : 19 /10/2020.

 

J U D G M E N T

          The Complainant Sri Pritam Deb, set the law in motion by presenting the complaint petition U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986  complaining deficiency of service as well as unfair trade practice by the O.P. namely Sri Malin Debnath, Proprietor of Joy Ram Grill Factory. 

The Complainant's case, in brief, is that the Complainant on 15/01/2020 went to the shop of the O.P. desiring the purchase of iron pipe of TATA Company, then the O.P. expressed that all desirable TATA Company iron pipe were available in his shop. Thereafter, the Complainant fixed the price of the said iron pipe and also made a contract with the O.P. to install the said TATA Company iron pipe in his house for an amount of Rs.65,515/-(Sixty Five thousand Five hundred and Fifteen only) including fitting charges of those iron pipe in the house of the Complainant. On 16/01/2020 the O.P. brought the said iron pipe for installation purpose in his house and then the Complainant tried to check the quality and other parameter of the iron pipe but the O.P. smartly divert these issue and restrained the complainant to check the  quality of the iron pipe. On 22/01/2020 the O.P. after finishing the installation of the said iron pipe provided the cash memo where it is mentioned those iron pipe belongs to TATA Nezone Company but when the Complainant carefully examine the used pipe then he nowhere found in the pipe as coated TATA Nezone. Thereafter, the Complainant on the next day informed the O.P. that all the pipe belongs to Nezone Company but he charges the amount fixed for TATA Company pipe. Then the O.P. fraudulently told TATA and Nezone are same Company. Thereafter, the Complainant made a query on the official website of TATA and Nezone Company from where he came to know that both the Company have a different identity and different entity. Thus, the O.P. cheated the Complainant. The O.P. used 'Nezone' iron pipe instead of TATA Company iron pipe in the house of the Complainant for making a Tin shade but the O.P. charged for the rate of iron pipe of Tata company which is excessive as per rate of Nezone Company iron pipe. 

So, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the conduct of the O.P.,  the Complainant alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practices has filed the instant complaint before this Forum claiming Rs.2,60,000/-  as compensation for causing harassment, mental agony Rs.20,000/- as litigation cost and  Rs.5,000/- as travel fair costs from the O.P.  

Hence this case.

 

2. On admission of the complaint notice was issued upon the O.P. but he did not turn up. Ultimately, the case is proceed ex-parte against the O.P.   

 

EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE COMPLAINANT:-

3. Complainant has examined himself as PW-I and he has submitted his examination-in-Chief by way of Affidavit. In this case the complainant produced 3 documents comprising 4 sheets under a Firisti dated 14/05/2020. The documents are namely photocopy of cash memo of Joyram Grill Factory, Computer generated copy about Nezone Company description taken from Nezone Company Website & photo of Nezone Trade Mark. On identification the  documents are marked as Exhibit-I series. The Complainant was cross examined by the court as it is ex-parte proceeding.

 

POINTS TO BE DETERMINED:-

    Based on the contentions raised by the Complainant in the pleadings and having regard to the evidence adduced by the complainant, the following points cropped up for determination:

        (I) Whether the O.P. has committed any deficiency of service towards the Complainant and have also indulged in unfair trade practices?

(II) Whether the complainant is entitled to get  compensation/relief as prayed for?

 

5. DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION:

  We have heard arguments of Complainant as well as his Counsel. 

          Learned Advocate for the Complainant submitted that since the O.P. did not appear after getting notice, court can presume about the truthfulness of the Complainants case. Moreover, exhibited documents also supports the claim of the complainant. The Complainant was cheated by the O.P. and the conduct of the O.P. was unfair. So, the Complainant is entitled to get suitable compensation from the O.P.

 

6. It is fact that the O.P. did not turn up after receiving the notice from the Court and as a result the case is proceeded exparte. The Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in a ex-parte case :  Aegon Religane Life Insurance Co. Ltd.  Vs. Adari Lakshmi in Revision Petition No.579 of 2017 decided on 09th October, 2017 reported in 2018(1) CLT page 310 held that the conduct on the part of the O.P. amounts to an admission of the allegations leveled in the complaint against them. 

 

7. In this case Complainant examination himself as PW-I and submitted Examination-in-Chief on Affidavit and also exhibited photo copy of cash memo dated 22/01/2020 and also one photo copy of photographs of Nezone mark quoted pipe which was installed in the house of the Complainant by the O.P. The Complainant also exhibited description of Nezone Company from down loaded from Website. The Complainant in his Examination-in-Chief stated that on 15/01/2020 he went to the shop of the O.P. where he desired to purchase TATA Company Iron Pipe for his newly made house. Then the O.P. expressed that all desirable TATA Company Iron Pipe were available in shop.  They fixed the price of  TATA iron pipe and a contract is made to install in his house using the Iron Pipe of TATA Company for an amount of Rs.65,515/- including fitting charges. 

On 16/01/2020 when the O.P. brought the said iron pipe for installation purpose then he tried to check the quality and other parameter of the iron pipe but the O.P. smartly divert these issue and restrained him to check the quality of the iron pipe. 

On 22/01/2020 the O.P. after finishing the installation of the said iron pipe provided the cash memo where it was mentioned that those iron pipe belongs to TATA Nezone Company but when the Complainant carefully examine the said pipe, he noticed that the pipe consists of Nezone Company Trade mark. There is no marking of TATA in the pipe. Thus, the O.P. cheated the Complainant and also took excessive price for Nezone and also there was a deficiency of service and unfair trade practice caused by the O.P.  

 

8. After careful scrutiny of the evidence of the Complainant including documentary evidence we find that the Complainant has succeeded in establishing his case U/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the O.P. We accordingly held that the O.P. is guilty of committing unfair trade practice against the Complainant. 

From the evidence of the Complainant it is found that the O.P. has received at least Rs.10/- per Kg. in comparison with the TATA iron pipe & Nezone pipe as per cash memo. The Complainant purchased total 744.5 Kg. So the excessive amount will be (744.5 x 10) per Kg. = Rs.7,445/- that means the Complainant is entitled to refund the amount of Rs.7,445/- from the O.P. as an amount of different rate. We further held that the O.P. shall also pay Rs.10,000/- to the Complainant for causing mental agony and harassment together Rs.5,000/- being the cost of litigation. Thus the O.P. shall pay in total Rs.22,445/-(Rs.7,445/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) to the Complainant within a period of 2 months from the date of judgment failing which the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% P.A. till the payment is made in full with effect from the date of judgment.  

Office is directed to supply a certified copy of the judgment to the Complainant free of cost and Complainant is directed to send a copy of certified copy of the judgment to the address of the O.P. within 07 days by post after receiving it for information of the O.P. 

 

 

    Announced.

 

SRI  RUHIDAS  PAL

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

 

  SMT. DR  BINDU  PAL

 MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL FORUM, 

WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA