This case has been filed U/s.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant that this complainant being a retired Army officer wanted to make a written agreement with Swapan Patra, Senior Investigation Officer Crime Detective World for providing some confidential information as well as certain authentic documents. In their official prescribed Form and documents of two pages which were filled up and written by the officials of said organization and duly signed & sealed by the both parties in the regd. office of opposite parties. According to that agreement the total cost of this services for providing some information was fixed Rs.30,000/- out of which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.22,500/- through account payee cheque of SBI Baghbazar Br. as advance money. And the balance amount will be paid on submission of report as terms of the agreement dated 25.9.2015 as per agreement opposite party no. 2 agreed to complete the entire service within 45 days from the date of agreement but after the expiry of stipulated period the opposite parties could not provide such service of information as per agreement. Complainant tried to contact opposite party no. 2 over telephone many times but the said opposite party failed to provide required information supported with authentic documents. Subsequently, the complainant visited several times in the opposite party office and met with the opposite party no. 2 who on his turn misbehaves with this complainant. Thereafter the complainant wrote two letters, e-mail and sms to remind about the failure to provide services as per agreement. That on 9^th March, 2016 opposite party no. 2 demanded further sum of Rs. 25,000/- more than the agreed amount but the complainant did not agree with the opposite party no. 2. When the opposite party no. 2 came down to Rs. 15,000/- then the complainant agreed to pay the same on condition to provide the proper required services immediately as per agreement and wrote a letter to that effect but the opposite party never required to this complainant. The attitude of the opposite parties towards non-fulfillment of the terms and condition of the agreement dt. 25.9.2015 and receiving the consideration money by opposite party is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant lodged the complaint against the opposite party to the authority concern. The opposite parties failed to provide required information with documents and thereafter failed to refund the agreed amount of Rs.22,500/- to this complainant. So, the complainant being a senior citizen is now undergoing financial, mental and physical threats and loss. Lastly, the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties before the director Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell at Kolkata and Ld. Assistant Director of Central Grievance Redressal Cell directed the opposite parties to return the sum of Rs.22,500/- to the complainant within 15 days but the opposite party failed to neglect the order of said grievance cell. So getting no alternative the complainant filed the instant complaint praying direction upon the opposite party to refund the agreed amount of Rs.22,500/-, a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant for unnecessary and willful and inordinate delay, harassment, mental agony and anxiety, Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost and other reliefs as this Forum deems fit and proper.

The opposite party no.2 files written version denying the allegations leveled against him and averred that the complainant is not a consumer u/s- 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the complainant has liberty to approach civil court or by criminal forum and contended that individual file handed over to Crime detective world of proprietorship concern headed over by Swapan Patra to scrutinize of certain documents like (1). Copy of death certificate from ILIS hospital or Bidhannagar municipality. (2). Raima Joshi work place and its location. (3).Mr.Jeeta Doshi which car he drives and its number, his office business. But there is no relationship of consumer and service provider in between the complainant and the opposite party. Breach of contract is not a consumer dispute.  As per agreement with complainant Mr. R. K. Gangopadhyay did not cooperate while the investigation is going on. As per terms and conditions the advance amount is not refundable. During the course of investigation it is important to keep it confidential from either side. Any leakage of information will be considered as a breach of contract but the complainant Mr. R.K. Gangopadhyay commits as a breach of contract. He subsequently averred that he received the amount of Rs.22,500/- and started to do the job in a fastest possible way. The opposite party works on each of his enquiries and collected information as far as practicable and available. When he engaged in doing the same the complainant expressed his real intention to him over telephone and requested and then started mounting to pressure on him to get his tenanted premises evicted by muscle power or by using men. The opposite party has no reason to oblige him and accordingly the opposite party turned down his proposal by expressing their inability to do these. The complainant continuously disturbed him over telephone and threatened him as he is retired colonel of Indian Army. The complainant is residing at army quarter allotted by Central government at Mahavir Vikas C/5/5 flat at Salt Lake, Block C. The complainant could not be engaged as a tenant in his allotted accommodation by a central government authority after retirement. With the passage of time the complainant found least interested as to whether he worked on his queries or not even at time the complainant abused him over telephone for not doing the job he intended him to do i.e. getting his premises evicted forcefully and illegally. According to agreement with the complainant subject Reema Doshi at present either alive or dead because several times enquiry and statutory surveillance by his operators could not get any trace of her. Computer borne hospital copy did not focus any light though guardians are matched. TP is matched but patients name as Reema @ Raima @ Rima was not matched. On enquiry it is found that her daughter is a 2^nd year student of Jadavpur University.  Jeetu Doshi is a businessman about real estate related matters and an influential person with good reputation in his locality. He did not find reqd car no. etc by his operator. Name of subject is Mr. Jeeth Doshi his address is verified and corrected. It is a white colored with blue combination building. The name and address of building is Mahavir Vikas Block CV/5, flat No. C/5/5, 1^st floor near Nicco Park, Salt Lake, Sector-3, Kolkata-106. He is staying in 1^st floor with his daughter. The queries which were given to him were not very easy to be met and as such he exerted best of his efforts and collected the information and stated earlier and prepared a report. But the complainant never cared for collecting the same by paying the residue of the contractual amount. The complaint filed by the complainant is baseless and devoid of merit and liable to be rejected. Further averred that a criminal case is pending before the JM court at Hooghly, Chinsurah against the complainant.

   The complainant filed evidence on affidavit which is nothing but replica of complaint petition and supports the averments of the complainant in the complaint petition & denial of the written version of the opposite parties.

     The answering opposite parties filed evidence on affidavit which transpires the averments of the written version so it is needless to discuss.

   Complainant and opposite parties filed written notes of argument. The evidence on affidavit & written notes of argument of both sides are taken into consideration for passing final order.

               Argument as advanced by the agents of the complainant and the opposite parties heard in full.

              From the discussion herein above, we find the following Issues/Points for consideration.

ISSUES/POINTS   FOR   CONSIDERATION

1. Whether the Complainant Ranendra Kumar Gangopadhyay ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

2. Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

3. Whether the opposite parties carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

4. Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

DECISION WITH REASONS

In the light of discussions here in above we find that the issues/points should be decided based on the above perspectives.

1).Whether the Complainant Ranendra Kumar Gangopadhyay is a ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

  From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant  being the customer of opposite party paid money to the opposite party for getting service as per agreement, so he is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. So the complainant is entitled to get service from the service provider i.e. the opposite party.

 2).Whether this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case?

Both the complainant and opposite parties are residents/carrying on business within the district of Hooghly. The complainant prayed for a direction upon the opposite party to pay the agreed amount of Rs.22,500/- which he paid for getting the information’s and relevant documents, a compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant for unnecessary and willful and inordinate delay, harassment, mental agony and anxiety, Rs.50,000/- for litigation cost and other reliefs as this Forum deems fit and proper ad valorem which is within Rs.20,00,000/- limit of this Forum. So, this Forum has territorial/pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain and try the case.

 3).Whether the opposite party carried on Unfair Trade Practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant? 

      The case of the complainant is that he being a retired Army officer entered into a written agreement with Swapan Patra, Senior Investigation Officer Crime Detective World, opposite party No.2 for providing some confidential information’s as well as certain authentic documents. According to that agreement the total cost of this services for providing some information was fixed Rs.30,000/- out of which the complainant paid a sum of Rs.22,500/-  and it is admitted by the opposite party No.2. And the balance amount will be paid on submission of report within 45 days from the date of agreement but after the expiry of stipulated period the opposite parties could not provide such service of information as per agreement. Complainant tried to contact opposite party no. 2 over telephone many times but the said opposite party failed to provide required information’s supported with authentic documents. Then the complainant visited several times in the opposite party office and met with the opposite party no. 2 who on his turn misbehaves with this complainant. Thereafter the complainant wrote two letters, e-mail and sms to remind about the failure to provide services as per agreement. That on 9^th March, 2016 opposite party no. 2 demanded further sum of Rs. 25,000/- more than the agreed amount but the complainant did not agree with the opposite party no.2. When the opposite party no.2 came down to Rs.15,000/- then the complainant agreed to pay the same on condition to provide the proper required services immediately as per agreement and wrote a letter to that effect but the opposite party never required to this complainant. The attitude of the opposite parties towards non-fulfillment of the terms and condition of the agreement dt.25.9.2015 and receiving the consideration money by opposite party is certainly deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant lodged the complaint against the opposite party to the authority concern. The opposite parties failed to provide required information with documents and thereafter failed to refund the agreed amount of Rs.22,500/- to this complainant. So, the complainant being a senior citizen is now undergoing financial, mental and physical threats and loss. Lastly, the complainant filed a complaint against the opposite parties before the director Central Consumer Grievance Redressal Cell at Kolkata and Ld. Assistant Director of Central Grievance Redressal Cell directed the opposite parties to return the sum of Rs.22,500/- to the complainant within 15 days but the opposite party failed to neglect the order of said grievance cell. So getting no alternative the complainant filed the instant complaint before this Forum praying directions upon the opposite party as incorporated in the prayer portion of the complaint petition.      

            The opposite party No.2 being the chief Investigator of the opposite party no.1 concern in their written version, evidence on affidavit and written notes of argument tried to evade his responsibility by stating that the complainant is less interested in getting the information’s as sought for and the relevant documents and admitted that it is difficult to provide the information’s but always tried to collect the due amount of Rs.7500/-.  There is no iota of evidence from which we can infer that the opposite party tried their best to provide service to their Consumer. As per agreement dated 25.9.2015 it was agreed in between the parties that the opposite party will submit information as well as documents within 45 days but they failed to provide the same within the period which tantamount to deficiency of service. Rather they always tried to collect money from this Consumer. So it is a glare example of deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party.  

            It is pertinent to mention that while disposal of complaint of R.K. Gangapadhyay against Crime Detective World the central consumer grievance redressal cell of Consumer Affairs Department found that the opposite party could not put forward any valid and convincing reason for abnormal delay in furnishing required information supported with convincing documents, they did not care to reply to letters of the complainant explaining reasons of delay in providing service as were asked for by the complainant, submission of the opposite party in their written version that the queries given to them by the complainant ‘were not very easy to be made’ is a lame excuse because they accepted to provide service knowing fully well of gravity of information sought for by the complainant, on 25.9.2015 the opposite party by way of an agreement assured of providing the required information to the complainant within one month and 15 days but they never informed the complainant in writing of problems they faced in collecting such information and valid documents substantiating such information with request for more time, it was mentioned only in their written version filed before us, they submitted confidential report along with their written version which the complainant disputed as incomplete and incorrect, on scrutiny of the report we are of the opinion that the report cannot serve purpose of the complainant; so, we find that ‘deficiency in service’ as defined under the Act ibid is really caused to the complainant. And in view of above, Sri Swapan Patra, proprietor of Crime Detective World, the opposite party of the instant dispute is requested to return the sum of Rs. 22,500/- to Sri R.K. Gangopadhyay, the complainant, within 15 days from receipt of this communication.

                         The complainant also filed a complainant before the Joint C.P. (Crime), HQ, HQ Kolkata Police , Lalbazar, Kolkata against the opposite party for getting refund of Rs.22500/- and prayed for help from life threat given by the opposite party.

            Upon perusing the complainant petition, written version, evidence on affidavit, written arguments of both sides and documents this Forum is in the opinion that the complainant proved his case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing documents and evidence and the opposite party failed to establish that he/they provided service to the complainant in accordance with the agreement dated 25.9.2015. Rather they took the plea that there is no provision in respect of refund of money in the agreement and the complainant was reluctant regarding the queries and documents as desired.  Such averments of the opposite party are not tenable in the eye of law. So from the above discussion we can safely conclude that the opposite party is deficient in providing service to its Consumer for which they are liable to refund the advance money taken from the complainant alongwith cost and compensation.

  4). Whether the complainant proved his case against the opposite party, as alleged and whether the opposite party is liable for compensation to him?

       The discussion made herein before, we have no hesitation to come in a conclusion that the Complainant has abled to prove his case and the Opposite Party is liable to pay the ordered amount.

ORDER

Hence, it is ordered that the complaint case being no.58 of 2017 be and the same is allowed on contest against the Opposite Party with a litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

             The whole gamut of the facts and circumstances leans in favour of the complainant. We, therefore, allow the complaint and Opposite Party is jointly and /or severally liable to refund the sum amounting to Rs.22500/- to this complainant within 45 days from the date of order.

            The opposite party No.1&2 are directed to pay compensation amounting to Rs.40,000/- to the complainant for harassment and mental agony.

           At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party  shall pay cost @ Rs.50/- for each day’s delay, if caused, on expiry of the aforesaid 45 days by depositing the accrued amount, if any, in the  Consumer Legal Aid Account.

           Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied free of cost to the parties/their Ld. Advocates/Agents on record by hand under proper acknowledgement/ sent by ordinary post for information & necessary action.