This appeal is directed against the final order delivered on 05/05/2017 in CC/96/2015 by the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar. Here Projector Mall and his proprietor Shri. D. Adhikari is the appellant against whom the complainant Shri P. Biswas registered the consumer complaint who is now the respondent in this appeal.

The fact of the case in nutshell is that the complainant/respondent being an unemployed youth applied for a loan before DIC, Cooch Behar to start a project for his self-employment. DIC approved the loan amount of Rs. 1,25,000 and authorized, PNB for providing of Rs. 1, 25,000 in favour of the complainant/respondent. The Punjab National Bank then directed the complainant to have an estimation in respect of the price of the computers and printers. The complainant then approached the appellant D. Adhikari, the proprietor of projector mall for a quotation and estimation. Accordingly, the appellant issued the quotation and towards the said prices of quotation the fund of Rs. 1,25,000 was allotted in favour of the complainant. Bank also issued a pay order dated 12/03/2015 for Rs. 1,25,000 for purchase of computers and printers. Thereafter, the appellant supplied five computers and one printer of complainant and submitted a bill of Rs. 1,25,000. The case of the complainant is that the computers which were sold to him by the appellant was defective and the prices of the printer Rs. 25,000 was appeared to be excessive amount in comparison to the market price to the same. The complainant then asked the OP to replace the computers and printer. Ultimately, the respondent took back four computers out of five and got refund Rs. 60,000 instead of Rs. 80,000. The complainant also asked the appellant to return back Rs. 15,000, the excess the price of the printer as because the market price of the said printer was 10,000 but the appellant has squeezed Rs. 25,000 from the complainant. The appellant has refused to do so and for that reason he has come before the Consumer Affairs Department for realization of an outstanding dues of Rs. 35,000 but the matter could not be settled there. Therefore, the complainant has registered the consumer complaint before the Ld. Forum. The appellant, after receiving the notice of complaint as OP has recorded his appearance before the Ld. Forum. But, subsequently, he did not contest the case by filing the written version. So, the case heard against him ex parte. In ex-parte order the Ld. Forum has asked the appellant to pay Rs. 35,000 to the complainant for the price of one computer and one printer. And for deficiency of service cost of Rs. 5,000 awarded in favour of complainant. Being aggrieved, with the said order this appeal follows on the ground that the Ld. Forum has passed the impugned judgement mechanically without application of judicial mind and the Ld. Forum has not appreciated the actual facts and circumstances of the case and committed error in appreciation of evidences and documents. The complainant/respondent after receiving the notice of appeal recorded his appearance before this Commission through Ld. Advocate. The appeal was heard through their legal representatives of the both sides.

D E C I S I O N S   W I T H   R E A S O N S

Having heard both sides and after going through the consumer complaint and the memo of appeal and after consulting all the necessary documents in this case it is transpired to us that the respondent/complainant has intended to secure loan amount from the DIC, Cooch Behar to establish the consumer project for self-employment and DIC has approved the said loan and authorized PNB to provide the said loan amount. The PNB has secured a quotation of prices of five computers and one printer through the appellant enterprises and provided the fund of Rs. 1,25,000 for such projects.

            At the time of argument, it is pointed out on the part of the Ld. Advocate of the appellant that actually no computers were purchased from the appellant by the respondent and for that reason Rs. 60, 000 by cheque was received from the complainant through his father by executing an under taking. And the said cheque of Rs. 60, 000 was encashed from Bijaya Bank and remaining sixty-five thousand was received from the appellant by the father of the respondent by the same document. At the time of argument, the one money receipt has produced before this Commission on the part of the appellant. At the time of argument, the Ld. Advocate of the appellant furnishes the original copy of receipt executed by the father of the respondent Satyaranjan Biswas marked as annexure (h). This document speaks that father of the respondent by executing this document has acknowledged that on 12/03/2015 to obtain a bank loan, a quotation was procured for Rs. 1, 25, 000 for purchasing five computers and one xerox machine (Canon) etc. from the Projector Mall that is the appellant. While Bank passed the order and funded a loan amount, the said amount was transferred to the account of the appellant. Rs. 60,000 was withdrawn by the father of the respondent by a cheque vide no. 510232 dated 19/03/2015 and cash Rs. 65, 000 on 25/03/2015 was withdrawn from the said fund. So, this piece of document clearly speaks that the entire amount which was sanctioned as loan in favour of the respondent was funded to the account of the appellant and by executing the documents annexure (h) dated 25/03/2015, the father of the respondent has withdrawn the entire amount of Rs. 1, 25,000 and this piece of evidence could not be furnished before the Ld. Forum and Ld. Forum has got no opportunity to consider this document regarding his authenticity and genuineness. Now, the appellant wants to rely upon this document which is vehemently challenged at the time of hearing. The appellant pointed out a bill of purchase computer and printer dated 25/03/2015 furnished by the respondent/complainant before Ld. Forum. Ld. Advocate of the appellant, points out the anomaly between allegation of the complainant/respondent before the Consumer Affairs Department and the consumer complaint filed before the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar. In consumer complaint the complainant mentioned that the appellant issued the bill for the sell of five nos. of computer and one printer totally a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 by issuing a bill dated 25/03/2015 whereas in the complaint before the CAD, there is clearly mentioned that he has purchased the five computers and printer on 18/03/2015. Whereas in the acknowledgement document annexure (h) the father of the respondent by executing this document has accepted that entire Rs. 1,25,000 was withdrawn from the fund of the appellant through cheque and cash. At the time of delivering the final order the document that is the consumer complaint as well as the complaint before the Consumer Affairs Department, Cooch Behar was placed before the Ld. Forum on the part of the complainant side. But Ld. Forum has not consulted minutely about the contents of the said documents. As a result, a vital piece of evidence remained unnoticed. At the time adjudication of the dispute the Ld. Forum could not get the opportunity to hear the case of the appellant. Therefore, in the view of the Commission, the order of Ld. Forum appears to be full of errors and appreciation of evidence was not properly done. So, this final order of Ld. Forum should be interfered so that a fresh trial of the case should be commenced in presence of both sides and Ld. Forum should adjudicate the dispute after relying all the documents to be produced again by both sides of the case. Thereafter, Ld. Forum shall pass final order appreciating the evidence and facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the appeal succeeds on merit.

Hence it is ordered: -

            That the appeal be and the same is hereby allowed on contest without cost. The judgement and final order passed by the Ld. Forum dated 05/05/2017 in reference to CC no. 96 of 2015 is hereby set aside. The appellant/OP is hereby permitted to file W.V along with necessary documents within 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of final order of this appeal and thereafter Ld. Forum shall give opportunity to both parties to adduce fresh evidence, if any, in support of their cases and to deliver a final verdict within a short span of time. A copy of this judgement of appeal be handed over to the parties free of cost and the copy of order be communicated to the Ld. D.C.D.R.F, Cooch Behar.