West Bengal

South 24 Parganas

CC/472/2014

Debendra Nath Kaushik. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Sushil Kr.Mitra ( Proprietor) M/S. Mitra Roof Treatment Centre ( Chemical Water Proof Treatment - Opp.Party(s)

31 Mar 2015

ORDER

     DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPLUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , JUDGES’ COURT, ALIPORE KOLKATA-700 027

 

C.C. CASE NO. _472_ OF ___2014_____

 

DATE OF FILING : 10.10.2014_     DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT:_31.3.2015__

 

Present                        :   President       :   Udayan Mukhopadhyay

 

                                        Member(s)    :   Dr. (Mrs.)  Shibani Chakraborty

                                                                             

COMPLAINANT             :    Debendra Nath Kaushik, 13/1, Jainuddin Mistry Lane, P.O Alipore,

P.S. Chetla, Kolkata – 27.

 

-VERSUS  -

 

O.P/O.Ps                                 :  Sri Sushil Kr. Mitra, M/s Mitra Roof Treatment Centre, 252B, Upen Banerjee  Road, P.S. Parnashree, Kolkata – 60, residential address at 15/1, Upen Banerjee Road, Kolkata – 60.

________________________________________________________________________

 

                                                            J  U  D  G  E  M  E  N  T

 

Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay, President                                    

            The  case of the complainants in short is that Complainants purchased different quantities of shares of O.P-1. Upto 1995 complainants used to get notices of Annual General meetings of the company but the O.Ps suddenly discontinued sending notices of Annual General Meetings of the company in a willful manner . . The O.P nos. 2 to 4 forcibly took control of the company’s office and had recorded their own names falsely therein as shareholders by alleged allocation of 2000 shares each in their own names – without any similar offer or consultation or consent of the complainants as shareholders of the company who had the full right by virtue of their shareholding in the company . The O.Pnos. 2 to 4 completely discontinued the Film production business  and recorded their names falsely as new Directors and Shareholders of the company .

            The O.P-4 who was entrusted with General power of Attorney by the complainants to help him in correct restoration of his shares, which he, along with his siblings, inherited from his father, was quickly ‘befriended’ by the O.Ps bringing him to their “fold” and recorded him as a shareholder Director in the company  and the O.p-4 is refusing to return the “General Power of attorney” back to the complainants .

            Complainants filed this case praying for restoration and recordings of the complainants’ names as continuing shareholders of the company in company’s Records and Registers along with full details of the number of shares belonging to them respectively and for rightfully allotments of additional shares to the complainants equal to the number of shares as were allotted by the company only to and in favour of the O.Ps after 1995 depriving the complainants their entitlement as shareholders of the company etc.

            The O.P is contesting the case by filing written version and has denied all the allegations leveled against the O.P.

 

 

            The O.P only admitted that the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.30,210/- by cash and cheque as a cost of repair work of the roof of the premises situated at 13/1, Kailash Ghosh Road, Green Park, Kolkata  and also admitted regarding the advertisement in the News Paper.

            It is the positive case of the O.P that they have carried out the chemical water proof treatment of roof only an area of 982 sq.ft with a guarantee period of 10 years over the description made by the O.P on 7.12.2014. The O.P submits that the allegations made by the complainant is false , misconceived. Hence, he prays for dismissal of the case.

            Points for decision in this case is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P and /or unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P or not.

                                                            Decision with reasons

            In order to find out the dispute of the parties Engineer Commissioner was appointed. From his report we find that Mr. S.K. Sarkar , Engineer Commissioner, has opined that “Re-treatment and application of water proofing products are necessary considering other actual aspect of roof materials to avoid further seepage of water through roof to ceiling & walls. The Engineer Commissioner also found that room nos. 1,2 and 3 with toilet and kitchen have dampness of high/low intensity. The patches of wetness are also found in ceiling as well as in walls.

            So, the totality of the circumstances clearly suggest that even immediately after completion of the work if this type of report of Engineer Commissioner is, then what work was done by the O.P? Moreover, the Ld. Advocate of the O.P has submitted that 10 years warranty is there and they will take up the matter within that 10 years.

            This is not the positive submission. If after paying lot of money any person has to run over the same dispute years together, then definitely the service provider O.P did not act properly and their advertisement is misleading one ,which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

            With that observation, it is

                                                                                    Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed on contest .

O.P is directed to refund Rs.30,210/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order ,failing which, 9% interest will carry .

O.P is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also to pay Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost within that stipulated period, failing which further interest will carry @9% p.a on the total awarded amounts .

Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the stipulated period .

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Member                                               President

Dictated and corrected by me

 

 

 

                        President

 

 

 

 

The judgement in separate sheet is ready and is delivered in open Forum. As it is ,

 

Ordered

That the application under section 12 of the C.P Act is allowed on contest .

O.P is directed to refund Rs.30,210/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order ,failing which, 9% interest will carry .

O.P is also directed to pay Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and also to pay Rs.2000/- towards litigation cost within that stipulated period, failing which further interest will carry @9% p.a on the total awarded amounts .

Complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the stipulated period .

Let a plain copy of this order be served upon the parties free of cost.

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                Member                                               President