DATE OF FILING                    :     24-03-2014.

DATE OF S/R                            :      06-05-2014.

DATE OF FINAL ORDER      :     27-08-2014.

M/S. Joy Enterprise,

a proprietorship business being represented

by  its sole proprietor, viz. Farhad Khan,

having its office at

East Baurikhali ( Kadamtala ) Bauria,

Howrah. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ COMPLAINANT.

-          Versus   -

The  Chairman,

Uluberia Minicipality,  Uluberia,

District – Howrah,

PIN – 711 316.---------------------------------------------------------------OPPOSITE PARTY.

                                                P    R    E     S    E    N     T

President     :     Shri T.K. Bhattacharya, M.A. LL.B. WBHJS.

Member      :      Shri P.K. Chatterjee.

Member       :     Smt. Jhumki Saha.

                                                 F  I   N   A    L       O   R   D    E     R

1.               The instant case was filed by complainant U/S 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 wherein the complainant has  prayed for direction upon the o.p. to pay Rs. 9,86,850/- as the charge of the work done and to pay back Rs. 1,29,534/- deposited to the o.p. by the complainant as security for the work and to pay Rs. 1 lakh as compensation and Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.

2.               The complainant got a work order vide no. UM/4596 dated 07-12-2007 from the o.p. for the work of construction of dwelling house and basic infrastructure at Bahir Gangarampur at a total consideration of  Rs. 24,60,000/-.  The complainant maintains his livelihood by discharging the work entrusted to him. After receiving the letter dated 24-10-2007  the complainant started work and expended Rs. 16,19,175/- for the aforesaid work out of which Rs. 9,86,850/- is still due. In spite of repeated reminders, the o.p. Uluberia Municipality turned a deaf ear. Hence the case.

3.                  The o.p. did not file written version in spite of proper service of notice. So the

case was  heard ex parte.

    4.    Two points arose for determination  :

i)          Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P.  ?

ii)                  Whether the complainant is  entitled to get any relief as prayed for ? 

DECISION  WITH   REASONS      :

5.        Both the points are  taken up together for consideration. On scrutiny of the enclosures and the correspondences it appears that the prayers   of the complainant are legal and valid. In view of such unchallenged testimonies, we are of the view that the prayer of the complainant shall be allowed as the o.p. adopted unfair trade practice as well as committed deficiency in service. Both the points are accordingly disposed of.            

      Hence,

O     R     D      E      R      E        D

      That the C. C. Case No.159  of 2014 ( HDF 159  of 2014 )  be and the same is allowed ex parte as against the o.p. with costs.   

      The O.P., Chairman, Uluberia Municipality,  be directed to pay Rs. 9,86,850/- to the complainant as the outstanding charge of the work done by him.

      The o.p. be further directed to refund the sum of Rs. 1,29,534/- lying in the custody of the o.p. as security deposit together with 8% interest p.a. till the date of deposit till full satisfaction.

      The o.p. do further pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental pain and prolonged harassment together with Rs. 5,000/- as litigation costs.  

      The complainant is at liberty to put the decree into execution after expiry of the appeal period.

      Supply the copies of the order to the parties, as per rule.

DICTATED  &    CORRECTED

BY   ME.  

  (    T.K. Bhattacharya  )                                              

  President,  C.D.R.F.,Howrah.