The Complainant has filed this case alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Concerned Authority, Aspen Projects India Limited, Kolkata and O.P No.2 is the Concerned Authority, Aspen Projects India Limited, Cuttack.
2. The case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant in order to maintain his livelihood from business, decided to purchase Tea dust from the O.Ps, where the O.Ps obtained signature of the Complainant in several printed unfilled forms and after maintaining all formalities, the O.Ps received a sum of Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand) only on 17.04.2012 as advance payment from the Complainant. The O.Ps also offered the Complainant as a super stockist and promised to market the said goods through their marketing agent as well as obtained two numbers blank post dated cheque from the Complainant for security only. The O.Ps delivered the said goods valued Rs.43,160/- (Rupees Forty three thousand one hundred sixty) only to the Complainant on 23.04.2012. The Complainant approached the O.Ps to give a copy of agreement in several times, where the O.Ps assured the Complainant to give the same very soon. Due to non-cooperation by the O.Ps, the Complainant was not able to derive any income and as a result, the Complainant informed the O.Ps a number of times, but the O.Ps did not pay any heed to it. Thus, the Complainant returned the above said goods to the O.Ps on 06.11.2012 and accordingly, the O.Ps assured the Complainant to refund the cost of the goods of Rs.43,160/- (Rupees Forty three thousand one hundred sixty) only as soon as possible, but the O.Ps have not refunded the same amount till date. So, the O.Ps for their personal benefits has adopted unfair trade practice for promotion of business, thus has swindled the amount from the Complainant, causing mental agony and pecuniary loss to the Complainant. Cause of action to file this case arose on 06.11.2012 and on 05.02.2014. The Complainant has prayed for refund of amount along with compensation for mental agony and litigation cost.
3. Though sufficient opportunities are given to the O.Ps, but they have not appeared in this case. So, the O.Ps are set ex-parte.
4. In order to substantiate his claim, the Complainant has filed certain documents as per list. Perused the documents filed. The Complainant was absent and did not take part in hearing of this case. So, his pleading is his case. According to his pleading, the O.Ps have received Rs.45,000/- (Rupees Forty five thousand) only on 17.04.2012, but the Complainant has filed a deposit slip showing Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) only towards it. So, there is no consistency regarding deposit of amount. Further, according to the Complainant, the O.Ps have offered the Complainant as a super stockist and promised to market the said goods. In support of it, a letter has been filed, which shows that it was addressed to one Asit Kumar Das though the Complainant is Asit Kumar Pradhan regarding super stockist. But, nothing has been filed to show that the O.Ps have promised to market the said goods. According to the Complainant, he has returned the goods to the O.Ps, but no such specific document is available in support of it. So, the plea of the Complainant is not according to the paper filed and no document come forward to substantiate his plea in this Forum. However, the O.Ps are set ex-parte.
5. So, now on careful consideration of all the materials available in the case record, I found no reasonable ground to allow this case as unfair trade practice on the part of the O.Ps are not well proved by the Complainant, for which the Complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed for and accordingly, this Consumer case is liable to be dismissed. Hence, Ordered:-
O R D E R
The Consumer case is dismissed on ex-parte against the O.Ps, but in the peculiar circumstances without any cost.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this day i.e. the 20th day of January, 2018 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
