DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
SOUTH 24 – PARGANAS , AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR,
KOLKATA-700 0144
C.C. CASE NO. __18_ _ OF ___2018
DATE OF FILING :20.2.2018 DATE OF PASSING JUDGEMENT: 01.2.2019
Present : President : Ananta Kumar Kapri
Member(s) : Subrata Sarker & Jhunu Prasad
COMPLAINANT : Subhash Mondal, son of late Khudiram Mondal , Vill. Pub Durgapur, P.O Dostipur, P.S Falta, South 24-Parganas.
O.P/O.Ps : Suvendu Ray, Vill. Bawali, Kalitala, Bawali, South 24-Parganas ,Pin-700 137.
__________________________________________________________________
J U D G M E N T
Refusal to refund the money advanced by the complainant to the O.P for a wooden box ‘khat’ has galvanized the complainant to file the instant case under section 12, C.P Act, 1986, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.
The facts leading to the filing of the instant case may be epitomized as follows.
Complainant arranged for marriage of his daughter on 6.6.2017 and, therefore, he ordered the O.P for supply of a Box Khat (cot) made of Sal and Coco wood and also paid an advance amount of Rs.20,000/-to him out of Rs.28,500/- , which was the total consideration price of the said khat. After the khat was manufactured, the complainant went to the shop to inspect the same before polishing and found it to have been made of “Siris” wood . The complainant did not take delivery of the said cot and demanded refund of Rs.20,000/- which was advanced to the O.P by him. But the O.P did not refund the said amount to the complainant and, therefore, the complainant has filed the instant case, praying for refund and compensation for mental agony and harassment.
The O.P has been contesting the case by filing written version ,wherein it is mainly contended that the complainant came to his shop on 21.5.2017 and requested him to supply an estimate of a wooden cot and accordingly he gave the estimate to the complainant of Rs.28,500/-. Surprisingly, on 20.12.2017 , the complainant came to him along with another and demanded return of Rs.20,000/- which he allegedly paid to him for wooden cot. The O.P denied receipt of the said money. According to the O.P, the cash memo is forged and fabricated; it was nothing but an estimate and he did not receive any money from the complainant. So, to him, the complaint should be dismissed in limini with cost.
Upon the averments of the parties, the following points are formulated for consideration.
POINT FOR DETERMINATION
- Is the O.P guilty of deficiency in service as alleged by the complainant ?
- Is the complainant entitled to get relief or reliefs as prayed for ?
EVIDENCE OF THE PARTIES
Petition of complaint is treated as evidence by petition dated 22.5.2016. Similarly, written version filed by the O.P is also treated as evidence of him vide his petition dated 31.5.2018.
DECISION WITH REASONS
Point no.1 & 2 :
Already heard the submissions of Ld. Lawyers appearing for the parties. Perused the petition of complaint, written version of O.P and also the other materials on record. Considered all these.
The determination of the case seems to have revolved round one single point. The point is whether the document which is alleged to be a cash memo by the complainant is really a cash memo or an estimate as alleged by the O.P. The complainant has filed the original cash memo on record. The contents and handwriting of the said document are not at all disputed by the O.P.
According to the O.P, he issued an estimate, not the cash memo to the complainant. Where the hand writing and contents of the document are not challenged , we may safely hold that the document was issued by the O.P to the complainant.
Now to see whether the said very document is an estimate or a cash memo ,acknowledging the receipt of money by the O.P. An estimate will never display that some amount of money is received by the O.P. On perusal of the said document it is found that the O.P has mentioned therein that O.P has deducted Rs.20,000/-from Rs. 28,500/- and thereafter it is written therein that Rs.8500/- is still due. The contents of a document determine the nature of the document.
Regards being had to the contents of the said document, as referred to above, we do hold that the said document is not at all an estimate; it is a cash memo which was issued by the O.P in favour of the complainant when the O.P received Rs.20,000/- from the complainant for supply of wooden cot to the complainant.
That apart, the complainant has also succeeded to prove that he wanted to buy the said cot for the purpose of providing the same to his daughter in her marriage. He has filed a Marriage Invitation Card ,from which, it is established that the marriage ceremony of his daughter was scheduled to be held on 6.6.2017. It also transpires on evidence of the complainant that the complainant ordered the O.P to supply a cot made of Sal and Coco wood for a consideration price of Rs.28,500/-. There is nothing to disbelieve the testimony of the complainant. The O.P did not manufacture the said cot by Sal and Coco wood and instead of it, he manufactured it by “Siris” wood. The O.P has not acted in terms of the agreement between the parties; he clearly deviated from what was agreed between them. So, he is guilty of deficiency in service and he will have to refund the money received by him along with compensation to the complainant for harassment and mental agony caused by him to the complainant.
In the result, the case succeeds .
Hence,
ORDERED
That the complaint case be and the same is decreed on contest against the O.P with a cost of Rs.5000/-.
The O.P is directed to refund Rs.20,000/- to the complainant and also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant within a month of this order, failing which, the compensation amount , the refund amount and also the cost amount will bear interest @8% p.a till full realization thereof.
Let a free copy of this order be given to the parties concerned at once.
President
I / We agree
Member Member
Dictated and corrected by me
President
