West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/115/2015

Smt. Shyamali Chakraborty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Ujjwal Sarkar, Proprietor of URS Technology. - Opp.Party(s)

16 May 2016

ORDER

 

 

 

 

 

                                                                   DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and

 Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.115/2015

                                                       

                                                                   Smt. Shyamali Chakraborty…………..….……Complainant.

 

Versus

 

                       Sri Ujjwal Sarkar, Proprietor of URS Technology, H.O.

                       317, R.K. Pally, Sonarpur, Kolkata-700150….Opp. Party.

 

              For the Complainant: Mr. Debasish Mondal , Advocate.

              For the O.P.               :  xxxxxxxxx

 

Decided on: - 16/05/2016

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President-Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant is a resident of Kharagpur (Town) within the jurisdiction of this Forum. The complainant ordered for a Flax Machine for which an agreement in the nature of deed of loan agreement was executed by the opposite party which was duly signed of the opposite party on 08/01/2015.  As per agreement, the cost of the Flax Machine is Rs.3,67,500/- out of which Rs.2,00,000/- was paid to the opposite party by the complainant on 08/01/2015 and it was further agreed that the opposite party shall deliver the aforesaid machine within 30 days and after delivery, the due amount of Rs.1,67,000/- shall be paid to the opposite party by the complainant failing which said advance amount will be refund. Even  after lapse of 30 days, the opposite party did not sent the machine to the complainant nor did the opposite party refund the advance amount to the complainant.  However, on 15/03/2015,

Contd……………..P/2

 

 

 

 

( 2 )

the opposite party delivered an old and demo solvent inject printing machine and had received Rs.3,67,000/- from the complainant. It is stated that the opposite party never deliver any Flax Machine to the complainant as agreed by the opposite party.  On the contrary, the opposite party delivered an old and defective machine to the complainant. Complainant sent one Sk. Samsher to the opposite party and the opposite party sent certain articles which were missing and received Rs.15,000/- on 18/05/2015 for engineer  for Sk. Samsher but till date no engineer has been sent by the opposite party and the said damaged machine, which had been fraudulently sent by the opposite party, is lying with the complainant.  Son-in-law of the complainant on several times requested the opposite party from his mobile and the opposite party falsely promised that they will send the engineer to rectify the parts but no engineer has been sent. Opposite party further received Rs.20,000/- on 21/05/2015 from the complainant for the charge of engineer and again on  25/05/2015, opposite party has taken Rs.15,000/- from the complainant on that pretext.  The complainant has thus paid Rs.4,52,000/- to the opposite party but the opposite party cheated  the complainant by practicing unfair trade practice.  Complainant sent a lawyer’s notice through Advocate Debasish Mondal on 03/08/2015 by speed post to the opposite party and the said notice was duly received by the opposite party on 08/01/2015.  In spite of receipt of that notice, opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the complainant.  Hence the complaint, praying for directing the O.P. to deliver a new Flax Machine or to return back Rs.4,52,000/- to the complainant.

                   Notice of this case was duly served upon the opposite party but in spite of receipt of that notice, opposite party did not turn up and hence the case was ordered to be heard ex-parte. Hence the ex-parte hearing.

 

Points for decision

1. Is the case maintainable in it’s present form and prayer ?

2. Has this Forum jurisdiction to try this case ?

     3)  Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for ?    

                   

Decision with reasons

             For the sake of convenience and brevity, all the above points are taken up together for consideration.

            At the very outset, it appears from the cause title of the petition of complaint that the opposite party Sri Ujjwal Sarkar, Proprietor of URS Technology deals with his

Contd……………..P/3

 

 

 

 

( 3 )

business at R.K. Pally, Sonarpur, Kolkata-700105.   Nowhere in her petition of complaint, it has been stated by the complainant that the opposite party has it’s branch office within the jurisdiction of this Forum.  Since it appears that the opposite party neither resides nor deals in his said business within the jurisdiction of this Forum, so we are constraint to hold that in view of Section 11 of the C.P. Act,  this Forum has no jurisdiction to try this case and the petition of complaint is therefore not maintainable before this Forum.

 

                                                  Hence, it is,

                                                      Ordered,

                                   that the complaint case no.115/2015  is  dismissed  ex-parte for want of jurisdiction.

                               Let plain copy of this order be given to the complainant free of cost.   

                 Dictated & corrected by me

                                 Sd/-                                         Sd/-                                          Sd/-

                           President                                   Member                                   President

                                                                                                                          District Forum

                                                                                                                     Paschim Medinipur