Dtd. 08.12.2022

Final Order/Judgment

Debasis Bhattacharya:- Presiding Member

Having been aggrieved over and dissatisfied with the purchase of the item, ‘Sound proof window’ from one M/s Tara Start International (hereinafter referred to as opposite party) of the address as mentioned above, the instant complaint petition has been filed by the complainant u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.

Firstly, it should be mentioned here, before proceeding in the matter of disposal of this case, thatthe instant one runs ex parte against the OP, as, in spite of proper delivery of the notice, the OP did not appear before this Commission even on a single occasion.

The fact of the case is that the complainant placed an order with the OP for purchasing ‘sound proof window’. Initially the OP suggested him to transfer some money as advance payment against the proposed purchase.

The complainant claims to have made a payment of Rs.1000/- on 27.01.2021. Reportedly the measurement of the window/windows was taken by some authorized person of the OP.

On receipt of the measurement, a quotation of Rs.78,824/- was sent to the complainant and the complainant was advised to pay at least 50% of the amount as advance. The OP is claimed to have committed to complete the job within two weeks. Allegedly, even after making the payment as advised by the OP, it took seventy five days to ‘finish the job’ and that is also after repeated persuasion.

The complainant states in his brief notes of argument that the product ultimately was delivered by truck but without any invoice. The complainant further states that the OP charged GST.

The glasses were installed and the complainant claims to have discovered that the product delivered was not sound proof as per his order and not according to the measurement.

Considering the entire developments as “deceitful service and unfair trade practice’ on the OP’s part, the complaint petition has been filed in which the petitioner prays for imposing direction upon the OP to make refund of Rs.78,824/-, to pay Rs.15,000/- as compensation for causing mental pain and agony and commensurate litigation cost which is not specified.

The complainant has prayed for treating the complaint itself as the evidence on affidavit.

 The complainant’s declared residential address is within the district of Hooghly.

The claim preferred by the complainant does not exceed the limit of Rs.20,00,000/-

Thus, this Commission has territorial as well as pecuniary jurisdiction to proceed in the instant case.

 Materials on records viz. the complaint petition, annexed documents and brief notes of argument filed by the complainant are perused.

A meticulous examination of the complaint petition and the very few annexed documents reveals that the complaint which is requested to be treated as evidence on affidavit, suffers from gross opacity.

The annexed documents in this case are only a few colored print outs of some purported NEFT transactions and an unsigned, unauthenticated sheet of paper containing some specifications of  sound- proof window.                                          

   Copies of documents like the particular order placed with the OP, copy of the quotation, communications made between the purchaser and the seller, delivery challan, the specific date of installation and above all the money receipts against the purported payments along with the corresponding bank statement are not produced before this Commission. The complainant claims that delivery of goods was not accompanied with the required invoice but GST was charged. Now the question is that without seeing the invoice how the complainant was assured of charging of GST.

The complainant claims to have made the entire payment of Rs.78,824/- in four installments during the period from 27.01.21 to 10.05.21. The consignment is reported to have been delivered on 12.05.2021. Here, the complainant’s claim that the entire payment was made prior to the delivery of the goods is not substantiated by supporting documents and hence lacks credibility. It is rather hard to believe that before receiving the consignment, the complainant made the payment in its entirety.   

In view of the above and on perusal of the case record and documents, this Commission is of the opinion that the instant complaint petition is devoid of material evidences and is full of inconsistencies. The basic minimum data and substantiating documents in support of the complainant’s claim are absent here.

Hence, it is     

ORDERED

 that the complaint case bearing no. CC/140/2021 be and the same stands dismissed.

There is no order as to costs.

           Let a plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost to the parties or their authorized Advocates/Agents on record, by hand against proper acknowledgement or sent by ordinary post for information and necessary action.

Drafted and typed by me