DATE OF FILING                    :       11-04-2013.

DATE OF S/R                            :       02-05-2013.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :        16-07-2013.

Sri Dilip Kumar Bose,

son of 2/4/1, Chasa Dhopa Para Lane,

P.O. – B. Garden, P.S. Shibpur,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711103.-------------------------------------------------------------------  COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

Sri Palash Bhattacharya,

proprietor of Reliable Service

having its registered office at

55/1, Hriday Krishna Banerjee Lane,

P.S. & District – Howrah,

PIN – 711101. ----------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY..

                                                P   R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya,  M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.                  The complainant Shri Dilip Kr. Ghosh by filing a petition U/S  12 of the  C.P. 

Act, 1986, as amended up to date has prayed for passing necessary direction upon the o.p. M/S. Reliable Ser ice represented by its propritetor Shri Palash Bhattacharya to refund Rs. 3,000/- paid towards A.M.C. for the period of six years for Filto Chimni ( Ultra Fresh ) and Rs. 3,280/- towards maintenance charges of Usha Brita Water Aquaguard for the period of four years respectively from 11-09-2010 to 10-09-2016 for the first one and 13-09-2010 to 12-09-2014 for the second one and other relief in the mode of compensation for causing severe mental agony and harassment.

2.                  The brief facts of the complaint is that the complainant entered into two

agreements towards A.M.C. of his chimni ( Ultra Fresh ) on payment of  Rs. 3,000/- for six years on 11-09-2010 and Usha Aquaguard for Rs. 3,280/- for the period of four years starting from k24-09-2010. It is seen from  the record that the O.P. cleaned the said chimni only on the dated 10-09-2011 as well as water Aquaguard   also, in spite of the facts that the full contract amount as per agreement has been received by the O.P. from the complainant. The complainant approached to the O.P. on several occasions at his office as well as over telephone about months together for attending the works as per agreement but all attempts are in vain on the contrary the O.P. took plea of the labour problem under which he could not take up the works as per agreement. Having been frustrated he ( herein the complainant ) further approached before the Assistant Director, C.A. & F.B.P., Howrah Regional Office, for mediation due to non compliance of the works as per agreement who subsequently intimating the complainant his failure for mediation. Finding no other alternative the complainant filed this case before the Forum praying for relief and compensation.

3.                  Notice was served upon the O.P. and O.P. having submitted written version

contending interalia that the instant case is false, frivolous, concocted, motivated, vexatious and harassing the O.P. The O.P. also denied the mismatching of the executed contract after 10-09-2010 /or  24-09-2010 on the plea that the he ( herein o.p.) visited the complainant’ residence in several occasions for cleaning the same as per agreement but could not accelerate the same of the obvious reasons best known by the complainant against which deficiency in service on the part of this answering O.Ps. after lapses of long time with sinister motive for achieving his illegal gain does hold good and liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.

4.         Upon pleadings of both parties two points arose for determination :

i)                    Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the  O.P. for due care for execution of the works in due time as per contract  ?

ii)                   Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

      5.               Both the points are  taken up together for consideration.      Perused the evidence filed by the complainant and the O.P. considered. It is admitted facts that the complainant enterted into an agreement with the O.P. vide contract no. 0033 dated 11-09-2010 for annual maintenance of Net Filto Chimni for a period of six years starting from 10-09-2010 quarterly i.e., 18 times and that to Usha Brita Water Aquaguard for the period of four years starting from 24-09-2010 with a total consideration amount of Rs. 6,280/- separately for Rs. 3,000/- for the first one and Rs. 3280/- for the second one.

      6.               It is kalso taken into consideration that the O.P. has taken the jobs as AMC works for only one time on the dated 10-09-2010 violated the contract as per contract no. 033 datd 11-09-2010 as it is available on record as filed by the complainant. There is no doubt about it that O.P. neglected his part of duty with all unfair ness. The purification of drinking water is a matter which is to be given utmost priority / importance. We are quite sure that the O.P. could not realize the very spirit of the service which he undertook to provide in terms of the contract.   

7.         We have also gone through the records / written version of the O.P. where it allegedly stated that due to negligence and various pretexts of the complainant he / this answering O.P. could not accelerate the annual contract as per agreement executed. the allegation as made by the O.P. against the complainant is not tenable to the Court of Law as there is no tangible action made by the O.P.  to mitigate the grievances of the complainant in support of his complaint made against the complainant, in spite of the facts that the complainant repeatedly / vividly contacted through letters / over telephone  with the O.P. to execute the job as per contract though the complainant paid the total contract amount on good faith.

      8.   From the above we concluded our considered opinion that there is clear negligence on the part of the O.P. which tantamount the gross violation of the service under the banner as deficiency in service U/S 2(1)(g) and 2(1)(o) of C.P. Act, 1986 which as if seems to extorting money without actually discharging the obligation of the service provider so called O.P. as per agreement, for which it is a fit case in which the complainant is entitled to get relief and compensation as prayed for. 

            Points under consideration are accordingly disposed of.  

            In the result, the complaint succeeds.

      Hence,

                                    O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.  108  of 2012 ( HDF 108 of 2012 )  be  allowed on contest against o.p.  with cost.

      The o.p. be directed to  refund Rs. 6,280/- ( Rs. 3,000/ + Rs. 3,280/-)  to the complaiant within 30 days from the dte of this order.

      The complainant do get an award of 1,000/- as compensation for prolonged harassment and mental agony and Rs. 500/- as litigation costs from the O.P. within one month from the date of this order.

      The entire amount of Rs. 7,780/- ( Rs. 6,280 + Rs. 1,000 + Rs. 500 ) will be paid by the O.P.  to the complainant  within 30 days from the date of this order , failure of which @ 9% p.a. shall be levied on the unpaid amount till realization.

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.          

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.            

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (   P. K. Chatterjee )                                                          (    P. K. Chatterjee)

  Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                                       Member,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.

     (  Jhumki Saha  )                                                                (  T.K. Bhattacharya  )

 Member, C.D.R.F.,Howrah.                                            President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.