Orissa

Cuttak

CC/77/2015

Dipak Ranjan Behera - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Commissioner,Cuttack Municipal Corporation - Opp.Party(s)

J K Mohanty

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,CUTTACK.

C.C No.77/2015

 

Dipak Ranjan Behera,

At:Ramdaspur(Godisahi),

P.S:Baranga,Dist:Cuttack.                                                            … Complainant.

 

Vrs.

The Commissioner,

Cuttack Municipal Corporation,

At:Choudhury Bazar.P.S:Purighat,

Dist:Cuttack.                                                                                    … Opp. Party.

 

Present:               Sri Dhruba Charan Barik,President.

Sri Bichitrananda Tripathy, Member.

Smt. Sarmistha Nath, Member(W).

 

Date of filing:   01.08.2015

Date of Order:  20.10.2016

 

For the complainant :    Sri J.K.Mohanty,Advocate & Associates.

For the O.P.                 :   Mr. Biswajit Mohapatra,Adv. & Associates.

 

Smt. Sarmistha Nath,Member(W).

 

                The complainant has lodged this complaint before this Forum against the O.P alleging therein deficiency in service provided and unfair trade practice adopted by the O.P.

1. The facts of the complainant’s case in brief is that the marriage of the petitioner was fixed to 06.05.15 and he booked the Cuttack Municpality Kalyan Mandap for the purpose of reception fixing on 06.6.15 by depositing Rs.5000/- towards caution money and Rs.28,000/- towards ground floor charges as per demand of the O.P and obtained vide Annex-1.
2. As the marriage negotiation failed, the petitioner intimated the Municipal authority and the booking was cancelled.  The authority returned the caution money only and promised to return the balance amount of Rs.28,000/- within two or three days.  The petitioner contacted the concerned authority several times but the concerned authority went on deferring dates.   On 26.06.2015 the petitioner served a legal notice on the O.P, calling upon him to refund the balance amount.  But the authority remained silent.
3. The O.P entered appearance through its Commissioner and filed written version.  The case of the O.P in brief is that the caution money and the ground rent charges deposited by the petitioner was never credited to the account of O.P and the money receipt are forged documents and the O.P has no knowledge regarding cancellation of booking and refund of caution money as well as the assurance given to him regarding refund of Kalyan Mandap charges.  The O.P has further submitted that an enquiry was conducted after receipt of complaint from the petitioner and it was learnt that one Pradeep Kumar Samal was the care taker of the Kalyan Mandap at the relevant time and he received the said amount and misappropriated the same by issuing forged and fabricated money receipts.
4. It is further submitted by the O.P that on receipt of the legal notice from the learned advocate for the petitioner, an FIR was lodged in Purighat P.S and basing on which Purighat P.S Case No.95/14 was registered under Section-409,468,471 & 420 IPC against the care taker and the said case is now pending in the file of Learned SDJM(Sadar),Cuttack and the care taker was placed under suspension.
5. We have heard learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the record.  It is an admitted fact that the care taker is an employee of the O.P, who was assigned work of booking of Kalyan Mandap as well as to receive the amount towards ground rent and caution money.  The O.P has not disputed the receipt of money towards booking of Kalyan Mandap.  The said O.P only averred that the amount has not been credited to their account and further submitted that the said care taker has issued forged and fabricated money receipt.  The fact that  the O.P. cannot shift its responsibility because the employee engaged by the O.P has received the amount and issued forged documents.  Since the said employee ohas worked as on agent of the O.P., the O.P is liable to return the amount deposited by petitioner.  But since the O.P has adopted unfair trade practice the petitioner has suffered mental agony as well as financial loss.

ORDER

The prayer of the complainant is allowed and the O.P. is directed to refund the deposited amount of Rs.28,000/- and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- to the complainant for mental agony and harassment suffered by him within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by the Hon’ble Member in the Open Court on this the 20^th  day of October, 2016 under the seal and signature of this Forum.

 

                                     ( Smt. Sarmistha Nath )

                                           Member(W)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

.

                  (Sri D.C.Barik)

                                                                                                                                 President.

 

 

                                                                                                        (Sri B.N.Tripathy )

                                                                                                                                     Member