BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

CACHAR :: SILCHAR

Con. Case No. 11 of 2012

            Sri Debabrata Deb, ………………………………………………...          Complainant. 

                                                                        -V/S-

1.         Tele Brands,

            Wagle, I.E. Thane (W)-55 B-6,

            Pin-400604, Maharastha                                                                              O.P No.1

2.         Senior Post Master,

            Silchar Head Post Office,

            Silchar-1 …………………….                                                                       O.P No.2.

Present: -                                Sri Bishnu Debnath,                                                 President,

District Consumer Forum,

                                                Cachar, Silchar.                                            

Mrs. Chandana Purkayastha,                      Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

                                                            Shri Kamal Kumar Sarda,                           Member,

                                                            District Consumer Forum,

                                                            Cachar, Silchar.                                            

            Appeared :-                Sri A.Biswas, Advocate for the complainant.

Sri Dipak Kumar Deb, Advocate for the O.P No.2.

None for O.P.No.1

                         Date of Evidence………………………..    17-05-2013, 25-07-2013

                         Date of written argument………………    15-07-2015

                         Date of oral argument………………….    08-06-2017

                         Date of judgment……………………….     10-11-2017

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

                  Sri Bishnu Debnath,

1. Sri Debabrata Deb brought this complaint under Consumer protection Act, 1986 against Tele Brands, Wagle I.E. Thane (W) – 55 B – 6, Pin – 400604, Maharastra, and against Senior Post Master, Silchar HPO for award of compensation and refund of Rs. 6,819/- because the Complainant placed an order for supply of 5 in 1 Sofa-Cum Bed (Rubber Item) but the O.P.No.1 delivered VPP No.1081433 dated 13/02/2012 containing old books of veterinary.
2. The Statutory notice issued to O.P. No.1 and 2. The O.P.No.2 the Silchar HPO on response submitted W/S stating inter alia that it attended as an agent of the O.P.No.1, for realization of price of VPP and delivered the aforesaid VPP on 17/02/2012 to the home address of the Complainant. The O.P. No.1 did not turn up. So, no W/S received from the ends of O.P.No.1.
3. However, during hearing the Complainant deposed as P.W and exhibited a parcel box. Original copy of postal receipt and a copy of email. The O.P.No.2, examined Sri.Kripamay Nath, the inspector of Post (P.G) and exhibited Postal receipt V.P       intimation receipt and speed post manifest of SPC, Silchar dated 11/02/2012.
4. After closing evidence, the Complainant submitted written argument but O.Ps did not submit any written argument. Anyhow, we have heard argument of both the Ld. Advocate of the Complainant and the Ld. Advocate of the O.P.No.2.
5. In this case from the evidence on record, it is clear that the complainant received the VPP No.1081433 dated 13-02-2012 and paid Rs.6,819/- which include Rs.6,494/- as value of  booked product and Rs.325/- a carrying charge. But the complainant on oath deposed that he on opening the parcel found some old veterinary books instead of 5 in 1 sofa-cum bed. The contesting O.P being Post Office who delivered the aforesaid parcel did not challenge the aforesaid deposition rather stated that it collected the value of product of Rs.6,494/- and carrying charge of Rs.325/- only and delivered the VPP. The O.P No.1 who is supplier of the product remain absent without disclosing anything. That is why, from evidence on record, we do believe that the complainant placed order for sofa-cum bed and paid the price but the O.P No.1 supplied old veterinary  book for the reasons best known to it.
6. Hence, in our considered view, the above act of the O.P No.1 is nothing but unfair trade practice. Hence, the O.P No.1 is liable to refund the price with compensation.
7. Accordingly, it is ordered to the O.P No.1 to refund the price of Rs.6,494/- with interest with effect from the date of payment on 17-02-2012 with interest at the rate of 10% per annum and also liable to pay compensation of Rs.25,000/- which included compensation for unfair trade practice and compensation for mental agony etc. The O.P No.1 is also liable to pay cost of the proceeding of Rs.3,000/- too.
8. Thus, total awarded amount aforesaid to be paid within 45 days from today. In default, interest to be paid on awarded amount at the rate of 10% per annum with effect from today.
9. With the above order, this case is disposed of on contest. Supply free certified copy of judgment to the parties. Given under my hand and seal of the District Forum on this the 10^th day of November, 2017.