This consumer complaint is filed by Lansdowne Jagari Janakalyan Samity represented by its Secretary Shri Partha Shankar Mukerjee under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against Opposite Party namely Shri Ritesh Saha alleging deficiency in service on his part.
Case of the complainant in short is that complainant is a Registered Samity/Club and conducted Social Welfare and Cultural Programme and different Pujas. On the eve of Durga Puja festival in the year 2017, OP offered to engage him as decorators for making the Puja pandal against payment. Opposite Party is the sole proprietor of ‘Mitra Decorators’. So, accordingly an agreement was executed on 21.05.2017 between the parties to complete the entire work of making and decorating the Puja Pandal within 18.09.2017 at a total consideration of RS. 2,20,100/-. It was agreed that material for making and decorating of Pandal shall be supplied to the OP by the petitioner. The complainant on different dates paid a total sum of Rs. 70,101/- out of total sum of Rs. 2,20,000/-. Complainant also supplied the material for making of Puja Pandal on different dates to the value of Rs. 61,780/-. But since 25.07.2017, OP stopped the work of making/decorating of Puja Pandal without any notice to the complainant. He was contacted over mobile phone. OP assured that he shall resume the work but he did not do so. Ultimately, finding no other alternative, complainant engaged another decorator on payment of higher price for making and decorating of Puja Pandal. Complainant also sent a notice to the OP through the Ld. Advocate to refund the advanced money paid by the complainant and to pay the compensation but all in vain. Complainant also lodged one complaint before the local Police Station on 20.09.2017. So, the present complainant has been filed by the complainant for directing the OP to refund sum of Rs. 1,31,001/- along with interest and further to pay compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/-.
Complainant has annexed with the complaint petition, xerox copy of challan showing payment of Rs. 3,450/- towards the registration fee, copy of alleged agreement dated 21.05.2017, Xerox copy of receipts showing the payment, copy of the complaint lodged before the local Police Station and copy of the notice sent to the OP through its Ld. Advocate.
OP has filed the Written Version denying and disputing the allegations made in the complaint petition contending inter alia that there was no co-operation from the end of the complainant to execute and complete the pandal work. Yet the OP has completed the work of said pandal as per its commitment even facing loss, due to fear. The OP was bound to leave its asset of Rs. 3,50,000/- due to the threats by the complainant day by day over phone. The claim of the complainant for refund of the amount and the compensation is illegal and thus the OP has prayed for dismissal of the complaint petition.
On perusal of the record it appears during the course of the evidence complainant filed its affidavit in chief but no questionnaire was filed by the OP nor any evidence was filed by the OP. So, ultimately, argument has been advanced by the Ld. Advocate for the complainant and a written notes of argument has also been filed.
So, the following points require determination:
- Whether there has been any deficiency in service on the part of the OP ?
- Whether the complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for?
Point Nos. 1 & 2 :
Both these points are taken up for comprehensive discussions in order to avoid repetition.
At the very outset it may be pertinent to point out that inspite of the direction to file the original documents, complainant did not take any step to file its original documents for perusal of this Forum. However, so far as execution of document dated 21.05.2017 which has been claimed by the complainant as an agreement has not been disputed and denied by the OP in the W.V. It is the specific case of OP that he had completed the work inspite of no co-operation from the end of the complainant.
On perusal of the documents filed it appears that the complainant has not filed the registration Certificate/ Licence showing that the complainant is a Registered Club/Samity. The xerox copy of the document in the record only shows payment of Rs. 3,450/- by one Ashoke Kumar Das for the said Lansdowne Jagari Janakalyan Samity. Complainant should have filed the registration certificate or the License but the same has not been filed. The copy of challan indicates the name of one Ashok Kumar Das as depositor so who is the Secretary is also not clear as one of money receipt bears the name of one Sunil Bhandari.
It is settled principle of law that party seeking relief has to prove its case. Even though certain receipts are filed showing payment of amount by the Samity to the OP but again there is absolutely no material before the Forum that the work was not completed and it was left in midway. The complainant has claimed that as the OP had stopped the work of making and decorating the Pandal in midway, it had to engage another decorator but has not filed any document to show that the work was done by another decorator. Nor the name of the said another decorator who allegedly completed the work has been stated anywhere in the complaint petition or during evidence. It is admitted case of the complainant that the work was carried out by the OP but only since 25.07.2017 the work was stopped by the OP. So, even if the claim of the complainant is accepted then the contention raised by the OP that he brought the material for raising the pandal and for its decoration, at the site, in order to complete the work cannot be ruled out. It is strange that according to complainant, OP stopped the work on 25.07.2017 but it remained silent for two months and only on 20.09.2017 lodged the complaint before Police and also sent lawyer’s notice.
Deficiency in service has to be established by cogent evidence. Only by filing certain money receipt showing part payment or receipt showing of purchase of some material, by itself will not be sufficient to establish that the work was not done by the OP as agreed. So, on consideration of the entire material as discussed above, we find that the complainant has not been able to establish that there has been deficiency in service and thus the present complaint is liable to be dismissed.
These points are answered accordingly.
Hence,
Ordered
CC/695/2017 is dismissed on contest.
