DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No./91/2019
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
28.03.2019 08.04.2019 22.03.2024
Complainant/s:- | Mr. Subhabrata Sengupta, S/o. Sri Kalyan Kr. Sengupta, P-98, L.I.C Township Madhyamgram, P.O and P.S, Madhyamgram Dist-North 24 Parganas. -Vs- |
Opposite Party/s:- | Mr. Swapan Kar, Amrita Dhara, 1st Floor, 2, Nilkanta Chatterjee Lane, P.O. and P.S. Belgharia, Dist- North 24 Pgs, Kolkata-700056. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
Complainant above named filed this complaint against the aforesaid O.P praying for direction to refund Rs.20,000, compensation amounting to Rs. 50,000/- and litigation cost amounting to Rs.10,000/-.
He alleged that as per verbal agreement he entrusted the O.P for installation of false ceiling in the bed room as well as drawing –cum-dining room in his residential building with the consideration of Rs. 47,950/- and gave advance amounting to Rs. 20,000/- in his favour. But O.P not yet performed the said job. Complainant sent one legal notice through his Ld. Advocate namely AsishKumar Bose on 26.06.2018with a request to refund the advance amount of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest @12% and the demurrage charge amounting to Rs.10,000/-. But O.P did not pay any heed. Hence the complainant filed this case.
O.P appeared in this case record and filed W.V and denied the entire allegation. He admitted that consideration of the aforesaid job was fixed at Rs. 47,950/- and complainant paid Rs. 20,000/-. He also made counter allegation against the complainant and further contended that there is no deficiency in service on his part. He prayed for dismissal of the case.
Trial
On 05.09.2021 complainant filed a petition praying for treating the petition of complaint as examination-in –chief and that has been allowed. O.P not yet taking steps since 18.11.2022. On the date of argument i.e. on 07.03.2024 O.P was absent without any steps.
Documents
- Copy of legal notice 26.06.2018.
- Copy of reply sent by O.P through his Ld. Advocate Tapas Roy dated 09.07.2018.
- Copy of Aadhar Card of the complainant.
BNA
Complainant filed BNA.
Decision with reasons
We have carefully gone through the aforesaid documents. We have heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant at length.
Contd/-2
C.C. No./91/2019
:: 2 ::
On perusal of aforesaid documents we find that complainant engaged the O.P for the work of false ceiling in his house and consideration amount was fixed to Rs. 47,950/- and out of which complainant paid Rs. 20,000/- in favour of the O.P.
O.P clearly admitted said fact in his W.V. He raised some counter allegation against the complainant but O.P did not take any steps to prove the said fact by producing documentary evidence or oral evidence. Accordingly, we find that O.P has failed to establish the said allegation by sufficient documents.
On perusal of record we find that the complainant is a consumer and opposite party is the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that the complainant has able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt and complainant is entitled to relief as per his prayer.
In the result present case succeeds.
Hence, it is
Ordered,
that the present case be and the same is allowed on contest against O.P with cost of Rs. 3,000/-.
O.P is directed to refund Rs. 20,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of payment to till the date of refund in favour of the complainant within 45 days from this date failing which the complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
O.P is further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation in favour of the complainant within 45 days from this date failing which the complainant shall have liberty to put this order into execution.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
