Assam

Nagaon

CC/25/2022

DR. JIAUDDIN AHMED, SON OF GIASUDDIN AHMED - Complainant(s)

Versus

THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY - Opp.Party(s)

ABID HUSSAIN

17 Jan 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NAGAON
DISTRICT- NAGAON, ASSAM, PIN-782001
 
Complaint Case No. CC/25/2022
( Date of Filing : 20 Oct 2022 )
 
1. DR. JIAUDDIN AHMED, SON OF GIASUDDIN AHMED
SANKARDEV PATH, DHING ROAD, HOUSE NO.51, POST OFFICE-HAIBORGAON, POLICE STATION-SADAR, PIN CODE-782002
NAGAON
ASSAM
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. THE AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
BHUTRA MARBLE & GRANITE, AHEAD BHARAT PETROLEUM (NRL), KALIDUNGRI MAKRANA ROAD, KISHANGARH, RAJASTHAN, INDIA, PIN CODE-305801
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MRS. HEMA DEVI BHUYAN PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. DIBYAJYOTI DAS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. SANGITA BORA MEMBER
 
PRESENT:ABID HUSSAIN, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 17 Jan 2024
Final Order / Judgement
  1. This is a petition filed by one Dr. Jiauddin Ahmed (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) against the Authorized Signatory, Bhutra Marble & Granite, ahead Bharat Petroleum (NRL), Kalidungri, Makrana Road, Kishangarh, Rajasthan, PIN – 305801 (hereinafter referred to as the opposite party) U/S 35(1)(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 praying for recovery of money, compensation and other reliefs.

 

  1. Fact and circumstances for filing of the aforesaid petition as narrated by the petitioner are as follows:-

 

The petitioner purchased Granite & Marbles measuring 3800 sq.ft. in the month of April but the opposite party informed the petitioner that it will not be sufficient to fill up the truck carrying the materials to the petitioner and requested the petitioner to give order for purchasing additional 1200 sq.ft. Marble & Granite and accordingly, the petitioner agreed to the same and paid the full amount to the opposite party including transportation, insurance, GST, Toll charges, labour charges etc. amounting to Rs.2,63,893.00 and Rs.6,00,000.00 in totalRs.8,63,893.00 (Eight Lakh Sixty Three Thousand and Eight Hundred Ninety Three Rupees)only in the month of May, 2022 but the opposite party issued tax invoices/vouchers to the petitioner for Rs.2,63,574.00, Rs.77,800.00 and Rs.95,000.00 in total Rs.4,36,374.00 (Rupees Four Lakhs Thirty Six Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four) only. The petitioner further states that the truck carrying the goods reached his house but he received those materials in complete damaged condition and thereafter, he immediately intimated the matter to the opposite party annexing photographs of damaged goods with the loaded truck but the opposite party blamed the transportation service and asked him to unload the truck and also promised to return the amount of the damaged goods. Further submission of the petitioner is that he asked the opposite party to issue insurance slip and the opposite party provided the same to the petitioner but that was not proper insurance for customer’s profit and then, he tried to contact the opposite party through mobile phone, opposite party YouTube, Facebook etc. for several times but the opposite party did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner. The petitioner also states that finding no any response from the opposite party, he sent a legal notice to the opposite party on 26.07.2022, but in spite of receiving the same, the opposite party did not make any effort to contact him and thus, the activities, manners and conduct of the opposite party are highly unexpected and unprofessional for which the petitioner has been facing irreparable loss and mental agony for deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. Hence, this instant petition is before this Commission praying for the relief.

 

  1. On receipt of the notice, the opposite party did not appear and contested the proceeding by filing written statement. Hence, the case proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party.

 

  1. In course of ex-parte hearing, the petitioner submitted his evidence in affidavit of   his own and also exhibited several documents.

 

  1. We have heard the petitioner.

 

  1. Perused the pleadings and evidence in record.

 

  1. On perusal of the evidence in record it appears that the petitioner as PW 1 has fully supported his petition. He as P.W.1 adduced evidence in his affidavit and exhibited 8 number of documents. In his evidence in affidavit the petitioner deposed that he has paid total amount Rs.8,63,893.00 to the opposite party, but the opposite party, in spite of getting full amount for the materials, supplied damaged materials to him  and the petitioner, though tried to communicate the opposite party on several times but the opposite party did not pay any heed in this regard. Upon perusal of the exhibited documents submitted by the petitioner, it appears that  out of 8 numbers of exhibited documents, Ext.1 and Ext.1A are the Bank Statement of the petitioner by which by which we found that the petitioner had paid an amount of Rs.2,63,893.00 and Rs.6,00,000.00 to the opposite party on 6th April, 2022 and 22nd May, 2022 respectively but the Ext.1 and 1A do not bear the name of the opposite party in the description column though the above amounts mentioned in the Ext.1 and 1A are claimed to have been paid by the petitioner to the opposite party. Although, petitioner submitted one photocopy of receipt issued by Jaipur Jorahat Transport Carrier and one photocopy of Insurance receipt issued by the National Insurance Co. Ltd. as Ext. 4 and 5, but these two document do not show that the amount mentioned in the Ext. 4 an 5 was paid by the petitioner himself. It is further seen that there are only two documents relied on by the petitioner, namely, tax invoices of opposite party for an amount of Rs.2,63,574.00 vide Ext.2 and of Rs.77,800.00 vide Ext.3 and those were issued to the petitioner by the opposite party. The P.W.1 also stated in his evidence that he suffered financial loss by losing Rs.8,63,893.00  due to the defective service of  the opposite party  and  thus, prayed for a direction to the opposite party to pay him the said amount with a compensation of Rs.50,000.00 for deficiency in service and mental harassment and agony etc.

 

  1. Thus, on perusal of evidence in affidavit and the exhibited documents as stated above, this Commission finds that the petitioner has prima facie succeeded to establish that there was a deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. That being the position, we are constrained to hold that the prayer of the petitioner is required to be allowed partly. 

 

 

  1. Accordingly, the prayer made by the petitioner U/S 35 of the Consumer protection is allowed ex-parte and partly. Issue direction to the opposite party to refund the complainant an amount of  Rs.3,41,374.00 (Rupees Three Lakhs Forty-One Thousand Three Hundred and Seventy Four)only with interest 12% per annum from the date of filing this petition till realization along with an amount of Rs.10,000.00 (Rupees Ten Thousand) only as compensation forthwith.

 

Inform all the parties concern.

 

Given under the hand and seal of this Commission, we signed and delivered this Judgment and order on thisday of 17th Day of January, 2024.

 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MRS. HEMA DEVI BHUYAN]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. DIBYAJYOTI DAS]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. SANGITA BORA]
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.