Tripura

West Tripura

CC/104/2016

Sri Krishna Keshab Roy. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Shankar Banik, Prop. Of Biswanath Stores. - Opp.Party(s)

Self

30 May 2017

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

CASE   NO:   CC-  104  of 2016

Sri Krishna Keshab Roy,
S/O- Late Hiralal Roy,
'Sri Ram Kutir',
Hospital Road Extension, Near Gandhi Ghat,
Agartala, West Tripura.        .....…...Complainant.

            VERSUS
 
          Sri Shankar Banik,
S/O- Late Panchanan Banik,
Proprietor of 'Biswanath Stores',
58/2, Central Road, 
Agartala, West Tripura.            .......... Opposite parties.

                      __________PRESENT__________
 SRI A. PAL,
PRESIDENT,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER  
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

SMT. Dr. G. DEBNATH
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

C O U N S E L

    For the Complainant        : In person.                          
                      
    For the Opposite Party        : Sri Tapas Kr. Deb,
                          Sri Debabrata De,
                            Advocates.

     
        JUDGMENT  DELIVERED  ON:   30.05.2017

J U D G M E N T
         This case arises on the petition filed by one Krishna Keshab Roy. Petitioner's case in short is that on 20.12.14 he purchased some hardware items from the shop of O.P. including one set door lock, 2 nos. brass made handle for fixing 3mm size door board. All items were given and petitioner paid Rs.2689/- and katcha slip was given by the O.P. but after returning the home the door lock including brass handle could bot be fixed as size was not proper. Inspite of best effort the carpenter failed to fix the same. Petitioner then informed to O.P. that proper size door lock & brass handle for 3 mm size shutter was not delivered as per requisition so the carpenter could not fix it in his door. O.P. then showed new items but those were not of proper size and told him to wait for 4 to 5 days. Complainant went to the shop of O.P. on 20.01.15 but the O.P. did not recognize him. He misbehaved with him. Petitioner then told him to refund the amount but the O.P. refused. The complainant was humiliated by the misbehavior of the O.P. on 20.01.15. Due to unfair trade practice petitioner suffered and claimed the refund of the amount and Rs.3 lacs as compensation for humiliation.
2.            O.P. appeared, filed W.S denying the claim. It is stated that he is the proprietor of 'Adi Biswanath Stores' and the petitioner never visited his shop. It is a false and fabricated story as the petitioner did not purchase any article from his shop. Therefore, no question of unfair trade practice comes at all.

3.        On the basis of assertion denial made by the parties following points cropped up for determination;
        (i) Whether the O.P. misbehaved with the petitioner and did not refund the price of the defective goods sold by him?            (ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to get compensation for deficiency of service and unfair trade practice by the O.P.?
4.        Petitioner produced the Katcha voucher, statement on affidavit of P.W.1, Krishna Keshab Roy, P.W.2, Bhabatosh Debnath and another Amlan Das, P.W.3.  

5.        O.P. on the other hand produced the statement on affidavit of Sankar Banik, O.P. 

6.        Both were cross examined and on the basis of evidence on record we shall now determine the above points. 

            Findings and decision;
7.        Krishna Keshab Roy, P.W. 1 stated that he personally visited the shop of the O.P. 'Adi Biswanath Stores' on 20.12.14 for purchasing hard ware items. Shop owner O.P. was present at the counter. He asked the O.P. whether door lock for fixing in 3 mm size shutter was available. O.P. arranged all items and one Katcha voucher was handed over to him. The carpenter reported that size was not proper so he wanted to change the lock. From his evidence it is found that O.P. firstly agreed to change the lock and was waiting for new goods which was supposed to come from outside.  But later he misbehaved and did not agree to change the door lock and other items. Babhatosh Debnath, P.W.2 also supported the fact as stated by the petitioner. He affirmed that item purchased from 'Adi Biswanath Stores'. Another  witness Amlan Das was also present when the petitioner went to the 'Adi Biswanath Stores'.
        
8.        The contention of the O.P. is that item was not purchased from his shop. In his evidence he stated that he is the owner of the 'Adi Biswanath Stores' but complaint is filed  against the proprietor of 'Biswanath Stores'. He is not the owner of 'Biswanath Stores' but 'Adi Biswanath Stores'. It is true that in the complaint petition petitioner wrote 'Biswanath Stores'. That mistake was amended and in the evidence it is clearly stated that item was purchased from 'Adi Biswanath Stores' not from the 'Biswanath Stores'. O.P. failed to prove that some other shop namely 'Biswanath Stores' was located in the same location and the items was purchased from 'Biswanath Stores' not from his shop. Petitioner clearly stated that it was purchased from 'Adi Biswanath Stores' and 2 witnesses saw him in that shop. We find no reason to disbelieve him in this regard. It is transpired from this evidence that petitioner visited the shop of the O.P. 'Adi Biswanath Stores' and purchased the items on payment of 2689/-. In total 14 items were purchased as per Exhibit- 1 document. Date also written as 22.12.14 in the overleaf of that document. O.P. the proprietor of 'Adi Biswanath Stores' stated to the petitioner that the door lock is proper for fixing in 3mm size shutter and accordingly petitioner purchased it. But actualy size was not proper for 3mm shutter. The carpenter therefore could not fix it in shutter. O.P. did not give correct idea about the item sold. So petitioner suffered. He had to pay the cost of labour charge for fixing the lock but he could not use it. It become useless so he requested the O.P. to change the item. O.P. agreed with but thereafter he misbehaved with the petitioner and told that item was not purchased from his shop. He could not recognize him. It has become the practice not to issue voucher in respect of sold items to the customer by the shop keepers. O.P. produced one printed voucher but it was blank. No document produced to support that he used to sold item by issuing printed vouchers. Unfair trade practice is done by the O.P. and due to this deficiency of service and unfair trade practice petitioner suffered. It is transpired from evidence that O.P. misbehaved with Petitioner & refused to take back defective goods. The petitioner being a lawyer and Human Right Activists suffered a lot by this misbehavior. We therefore direct the O.P. to refund the amount taken as the price of door lock item Rs.2689/- after taking back those unused items. We direct the O.P. to pay the petitioner compensation amounting to Rs.10,000/- for the deficiency of service and unfair trade practice. O.P. will have to pay Rs.5000/- for cost of litigation. In total O.P. is to pay Rs.17,689/- to the petitioner. Both the points are decided accordingly.

9.        In view of  of above findings we direct to pay compensation amounting to Rs.17,689/- to the petitioner within one month if not paid it will carry interest @ 9% P.A. 

Announced.

SRI A. PAL
PRESIDENT,
DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM,
WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.

SMT. DR. G. DEBNATH,
MEMBER,
 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 
REDRESSAL FORUM, 
WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA    SRI U. DAS
MEMBER,
  DISTRICT CONSUMER 
DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, 
  WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA.