NCDRC

NCDRC

RP/2945/2005

SANJAY BESAN AND OIL MILLL(P) LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SRI NARENDRA KUMAR ROYCHAUDHURY AND OTHERS - Opp.Party(s)

V.P.SHARMA

21 Jul 2009

ORDER

Date of Filing: 22 Nov 2005

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSIONNEW DELHIREVISION PETITION NO. No. RP/2945/2005
(Against the Order dated 29/08/2005 in Appeal No. 974/2003 of the State Commission Orissa)
1. SANJAY BESAN AND OIL MILLL(P) LTD.MAURANIPURA DEBOYKA CHOWK JHANI UP 284204 ...........Appellant(s)

Vs.
1. SRI NARENDRA KUMAR ROYCHAUDHURY AND OTHERSWATER WORKS ROAD P.O. PURI POLICE STATION SEA BEACH DISTT. PURI 2. ARUN KUMAR CHAKRABORTYP.O. & B.R. -SURIDISTT. BIRBHUM WEST BENGAL3. ASHOK KUMAR GUPTAAT KALYANI NAGARP.S.-MADHUPATNA DISTT. CUTTACK ...........Respondent(s)

BEFORE:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN ,PRESIDENTHON'BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI ,MEMBER
For the Appellant :Mr.Nikhil Jain, Advocate for V.P.SHARMA, Advocate
For the Respondent :Mr.F.I. Choudhury, Advocate for -, Advocate

Dated : 21 Jul 2009
ORDER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

          M/s.Sanjay Besan & Oil Mills (P) Ltd., the petitioner herein, was the opposite party before the District Forum.

          Briefly stated the facts are that Narendra Kumar Roychaudhury, complainant/respondent No.1 herein, placed a purchase order on the petitioner on 28.12.1999 for supply of 540 tins of mustard oil and paid a sum of Rs.70,000/- by way of Demand Draft No.205137 dated 28.12.1999 for Rs.70,000/- drawn in the name of the petitioner, M/s.Sanjay Besan & Oil Mills (P) Ltd.  The said Demand Draft along with the bills was sent to the petitioner on 28.12.1999, which was encashed.  Petitioner received the amount but, by mistake, sent the consignment to Mishra Agencies at Puri.  Complainant requested the petitioner to return the money but the petitioner did not pay back the amount, aggrieved against which, a complaint was filed before the District Forum.

          District Forum, by its order dated 5.9.2001, allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to return the sum of Rs.70,000/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of order till its realization.  Rs.20,000/- were awarded by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- by way of costs.  It may be stated here that the petitioner, in spite of the Notice published in the newspapers, did not appear before the District Forum and was proceeded ex parte.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by the District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission.  State Commission by the impugned order upheld the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeal.

          Being aggrieved, present Revision Petition has been filed.

          This Commission, by its order dated 1.12.2005, while admitting the Revision Petition directed the petitioner to deposit the sum of Rs.70,000/- with the District Forum within 4 weeks.  Liberty was reserved with the complainant to withdraw the same, which the respondent has withdrawn.  Interest, as directed by the District Forum from the date of passing of the order by the District Forum till its deposit before the District Forum on our direction dated 1.12.2005, has not been paid.  Sum of Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.1,000/- by way of costs have also not been paid.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard.

          Petitioner, admittedly, did not appear before the District Forum.  Complaint was allowed ex parte, as the same was not contested.  We do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Forum and the State Commission.  Admittedly, the petitioner had received the sum of Rs.70,000/- but failed to supply 540 tins of mustard oil to the respondent/complainant. 

The finding recorded by the fora below is based on the documentary evidence and material present on record.  No ground is made out to interfere with the same.  Petitioner is directed to make the payment as per direction issued by the District Forum minus the sum of Rs.70,000/-, which has already been received by the respondent, and the costs of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the State Commission, within 8 weeks from today failing with the respondent/complainant would be at liberty to initiate execution proceedings in accordance with law.

Revision Petition stands disposed of in above terms with no order as to costs.

 



......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER