Sri Kamal De, President

The present dispute revolves over alleged non-delivery of ordered material by the OPs despite receipt of advance payment from the Complainant.

Case of the Complainant, in short, is that on 29-11-2014, he placed an order upon the OPs for supply of a 30” Tulsimanch at a total consideration of Rs. 75,000/-.  It is the further case of the Complainant that he made an advance of Rs. 1,500/- while placing the order and the delivery date was fixed on 30-01-2015.  Subsequently, the Complainant claimed to have paid another sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the OP No. 2.  It is alleged by the Complainant, despite receipt of advance money, the OPs have not delivered the ordered material causing mental agony and financial loss to him.  Hence, this case.

It transpires from the endorsement on the postal AD Cards that both the OPs received notice in respect of the present case being issued by this Forum on 28-01-2016, but they did not turn up to contest this case.  Accordingly, the case was heard ex parte.

The only point for consideration in this case is whether or not the OPs are guilty of deficiency in service and/or unfair trade practice, as alleged?

Decision with reasons

It appears from the unchallenged photocopy of Bill dated 29-11-2014 that the Complainant made an advance of Rs. 1,500/- while placing the order and as per the said bill, the materials were supposed to be delivered on 30-01-2015.  It is a fact that Complainant has not submitted any money receipt or other document to substantiate his claim about payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the OP No. 2, but in absence of any denial of the same from the side of the OPs, we see no reason whatsoever to cast any doubt about such claim of the Complainant. There can be no dispute as to the fact while the matter of placement of order and receipt of certain amount by the OPs is not contradicted from the end of the OPs, it was but necessary on the part of the OPs to supply the ordered products in strict compliance of its commitment which they have honoured in its breaches. Thus, the deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs is proved beyond all reasonable doubt. 

Law is for the vigilant and not for the dormant. In absence of any contrary and controverting materials on record and as the version of complainant remains unchallenged and uncontroverted, the complainant is entitled to the claim as prayed for.

Consequent thereof, the present case tilts in favour of the Complainant.

Hence,

ORDERED

that the C. C. No. 04/2016 be and the same is allowed ex parte against the OPs.  OPs are directed to either supply the ordered material as specified in the bill dated 29-11-2014 to the entire satisfaction of the Complainant against receipt of residual amount of Rs. 63,500/- from the Complainant against proper delivery of the same within 15 days from the date of this order or return the advance amount of Rs. 11,500/- to the Complainant within the aforesaid period along with interest @ 8% p.a. over Rs. 11,500/- from the date of filing this case, i.e., on 13-01-2016 till full payment is made.  The OPs are also directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost and compensation respectively to the Complainant within the said period.  In case the OPs fail/neglect to comply with this order within the aforesaid stipulated period, the Complainant may take recourse to further legal proceedings as mandated under the law and in that event the OP will be liable to pay Rs.50/- per diem till full and final payment.