West Bengal

Kolkata Unit-IV

CC/30/2021

MR. DIPANKAR GHOSH - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE ATANU PAUL COLLECTIVE & ANOTHER - Opp.Party(s)

PRIYANKA KAUSHIK

16 Jun 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Sealdah Court Room No. 302 and 309
1,Beliaghata Road, Kolkata-14
 
Complaint Case No. CC/30/2021
( Date of Filing : 26 Aug 2021 )
 
1. MR. DIPANKAR GHOSH
MASJID PARA, VTC: DIAMOND HARBOUR (M), P.O. DIAMOND HARBOUR, P.S. DIAMOND HARBOUR 24 PGS SOUTH, PIN : 743 331
SOUTH 24 PGS
WB
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. THE ATANU PAUL COLLECTIVE & ANOTHER
1/G KHUDIRAM BOSE SARANI, 6TH FLOOR ROOM NO: 612, CABIN NO: 8, KOLKATA - 700 080
KOLKATA
WB
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. SUDIP NIYOGI PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. MANJUSRI SARKAR CHOWDHURY MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. AYAN SINHA MEMBER
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 16 Jun 2022
Final Order / Judgement

Complaint Case No. CC/30/2021

( Date of Filing : 26 Aug 2021 )

 

1. Mr. Dipankar Ghosh

S/O. Anish Ghosh, aged about 42 years

Residing at Masjid Para, VTC: Diamond Harbour (M), P.O – Diamond Harbour,

P.S- Diamond Harbour 24 Parganas South,

Pin: 743331, West Bengal.

 

 

 

 

...........Complainant(s)

Versus

 

1. The Atanu Paul Collective,

Represented by its proprietor

Mr. Atanu Paul

Having its office Saltce Plaza,

1/G Khudiram Bose Sarani, 6th floor

Room No.: 612, Cabin No.: 8,

Kolkata – 700 080

 

2. Atanu Paul

S/O Nathuram Paul

16/2 Municipal Office Lane, South Dumdum (M) North 24 Parganas – 700 074, West Bengal.

Also at 48/B, R.B.C. Road(Extn.) Dumdum Cantt. Gora Bazar, Moyalakhana (Near/ Behind Padma Builders)

Kolkata- 700 028

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

............Opp.Party(s)

BEFORE:

 

 

HON'BLE MR. SUDIP NIYOGI PRESIDENT

HON'BLE MRS. MANJUSRI SARKAR CHOWDHURY,MEMBER

 

HON'BLE MR. AYAN SINHA, MEMBER

 

PRESENT:

., Advocate for the Complainant 1

 

 

......for the Opp. Party

Dated : 16 June, 2022

 

Final Order / Judgement

 

 

Mr. Sudip Niyogi, Hon’ble President

 

The case of the instant complaint is that the complainant had entered into an agreement on 22/01/2021 with the OPs whereby it was agreed that some interior design work in the flat of the complainant would be done by the OPs at a consideration price of Rs.4,80,000/- (Four Lakh Eighty Thousand Rupees Only). OP No. 1 is the name of the business of OP No. 2 who is the proprietor. Complainant issued two cheques of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees Only) each one on 20/01/2021 and the other on 31/01/2021 drawn on  SBI, Diamond Harbour Branch in

favour of  the OP No. 2. Subsequently, complainant also paid a cash of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees Only) on 31/01/2021. It was agreed that the enitre work would be done within 45 to 60 days from the date of the agreement. However, the complainant alleged that OPs subsequently declined to perform the work as agreed upon and demanded more cash from the complainant. As a result, the complainant wanted to get back the amount of advance made by him and demanded the refund of the said money. The OPs following the said demand issued two cheques drawn on Indus Ind Bank, VIP Road, Kolkata Branch one on 13/02/2021 for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (One Lakh Rupees Only) and another dated 19/02/2021 of the same amount. But unfortunately, the complainant found that the said cheques were dishonoured on the ground of “Funds Insufficient” and a service charge of Rs.590/- (Five Hundred Ninety Rupees Only) was deducted from his account. One notice was also issued to the OP by the complainant through his Ld. Advocate demanding the said amount arising out of dishonor of the said cheques but no reply was given by the OPs. In this situation, the complainant approached the instant commission seeking reliefs which have been made in the prayer of the complainant.

            As the OPs did not contest this case it was heard ex parte against them. Complainant filed evidence-in-chief on affidavit and also the documents including the originals.

            Now, the question is whether the complainant is entitled to the relief (s) as prayed for?

 

FINDINGS

We have perused the petition of complaint, the evidence filed on affidavit. Also considered the documents filed by the complainant. In his evidence the complainant categorically narrated his case as he had stated in his petition of complaint. From the documents filed on behalf of the complainant we find one agreement for interior design work entered into between the complainant and the OPs where certain designing works in the flat of the complainant were agreed to be done by the OP at a consideration price of Rs.4,80,000/- (Four Lakh Eighty Thousand Rupees Only). Complainant also produced the documents showing the receipt of the said two cheques @ Rs.50,000/- (Fifty Thousand Rupees Only) by the OPs. A copy of the demand letter through the Advocate of the complainant issued to the OPs was also produced. We also find two original cheques issued to the complainant by the OPs along with the Bank report showing both the cheques dishonoured on the ground of “Funds Insufficient”.

            Therefore, on going through the materials on record and following the discussion as made above it is quite clear that complainant who is found to be consumer has been deprived of his service from the OPs following the agreement made between them. Complainant also could not get back the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh Rupees Only) paid by him in total from the OP as the cheque issued by the OP got dishonoured.

Therefore, we are of the view that the complainant has been able to prove his case and he is entitled to the relief (s) as prayed for. Complainant is entitled to get the refund of money as advanced by him. He is also entitled the get compensation from the OPS for harassment.

OP No. 2  being the sole proprietor of OP No.1, it is OP No. 2 who is liable to pay the said amount.

Hence,  it is

ORDERED

That the instant case be and the same is allowed ex parte.

Complainant is entitled to get Rs.2,00,000/- (Two Lakh Rupees Only) from the OP No. 2.

Complainant is also entitled to Rs.10,000/- (Ten Thousand Rupees Only) for compensation and Rs.2000/- (Two Thousand Rupees Only) for cost of litigation.

OP No. 2  is directed to pay the said amount within 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the entire amount shall carry interest @ 6% till until realization.

If the aforesaid order is not complied with as aforesaid, complainant shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law.

      

         

 

Dictated and corrected by me.                                                 

                                                                                                                                                               [HON'BLE MR. SUDIP NIYOGI]

           President                                                                                                                                                                         PRESIDENT

 

[HON'BLE MRS. MANJUSRI SARKAR CHOWDHURY]

MEMBER

 

[HON'BLE MR. AYAN SINHA]

MEMBER

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. SUDIP NIYOGI]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MANJUSRI SARKAR CHOWDHURY]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. AYAN SINHA]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.