In the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,

Murshidabad at Berhampore.

Case No. CC/27/2016

Date of filing: 18 /02 /2016                                                                  Date of Final Order: 30/06/2016

Soma Biswas W/O- Anup Kr. Biswas.

Prop. A.S. Enterprise.29, Natunpara Lane,s

P.O.- Khagra. P.S.- Berhampore.

Dist- Murshidabad, PIN.-742103.(W.B.)………………………………………………………...Complainants             

                                                  -Vs-

1). The Director,

 Mayfair Tie up Pvt. Ltd.

 ( A Branch of Glamour Rorld Industries Pvt. Ltd ). 3 rd Floor,

 Anar  Chamber , 5, Chowringhee Approach Road, Kol.-700072.

2). Sentu Roy 37/1B., Bildhar Lane, P.O.- Khagra, P.S.- Berhampore.

 Dist. Murshidabad.PIN.-742103.……………………….   Opposite Party

Mr.Subhrangsu Sinha. Ld. Advocate………………………………………for the Complainant.

Ex-parte against the OP

                        Before:   Hon’ble President, Anupam Bhattacharyya.            

                                        Hon’ble Member, Samaresh Kumar Mitra.           

                                        Hon’ble Member, Pranati Ali.           

FINAL ORDER

Samaresh Kumar Mitra, Presiding Member:

            The simple version of the complainant as enumerated in the complaint is that the complainant run a business namely A.S. Enterprise for her livelihood at Natunpara Lane Khagra, Berhampore. She deposited two demand drafts of Rs.2,00,000/- & Rs.1,00,000/- in the name of OP No.1 through OP No.2 for distribution of products of OP No.1 in the market. Inspite of receiving drafts through OP No.2, the OP No.1 did not supply products to the complainant. OP No.1 neither sent any product to the complainant nor returned back the money received. Even several communications through mobile phones no positive result achieved till date. Then the complainant served an advocate notice to the OP No.1stating all the facts but no steps taken on his behalf so this complainant getting no alternative filed the instant complaint before this Forum for redressal.

        Despite receiving notice OP No.2 did not turn up. The notice as send to the OP No.1 returned with a remark ‘refusal’. As such the proceeding run ex-parte against them.

       Complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which she assailed that she deposited two demand drafts of HDFC Bank amounting to Rs.2,00,000/- & Rs.1,00,000/- to the OP No.1 through OP No.2 for getting products of OP No.1. But OP No.1 neither supplied the products nor returned the amount that received from the complainant. The complainant communicated the OP No.1 through mobile phone but of no result. Then she served advocate notice stating all the facts but no action taken. The OPs attitude towards the liabilities of this complainant tantamount to deficiency of service for which the complainant filed this complaint before this Forum for redressal.

            The agent on behalf of the complainants advanced argument in ex-parte and it is heard in full and fixed next date for passing Final Order.        

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

ISSUES/POINTS  FOR CONSIDERATION

1).    Whether the Complainant Soma Biswas ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

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

3). Whether the O.P. carried on unfair trade practice/rendered any deficiency in service towards the Complainant?

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

5). Whether the complainant is entitled to relief(s)as prayed for?

DECISIONS WITH REASONS

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

  1).Whether the Complainants Soma Biswas ‘Consumer’ of the opposite party?

                  From the materials on record it is transparent that the Complainant is a “Consumer” as provided by the spirit of section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986. As the complainant herein being the customer of OP No.1 is entitled to get service from the OPs.

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

          Both the complainant and opposite party are residents/carrying on business within the district of Murshidabad and cause of action took place at Berhampore, Murshidabad. The complaint valued at Rs.3,00,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental pain and agony and other expenses 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?

              After perusing the Complaint Petition, Evidence on Affidavit and also the documents as filed by the complainant and hearing the arguments as advanced by the agent of the complainant it appears that the complainant deposited a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in  two demand drafts before the OP No.1 through the OP No.2, an employee of OP No.1 . But after receiving the same the OP No.1 remained silent and neither distributed the products in the market nor returned back the amount received from the complainant. The complainant served an advocate letter dated 23.11.2015 by her advocate calling upon the OP No.1 to supply the products or return of the deposited amount along with interest within 15 days from the receipt of this notice in default she will compel to take the recourse of law before appropriate Forum .  But the OP No.1 did not take any action at the utterance of the complainant. Then the complainant getting no alternative took the recourse of this Forum for redressal as prayed in the prayer portion of the complaint petition. They/OPs are aware of the fact that a case in connection to their liability has filed before this Forum for deficiency of service but they did not appear and filed no written version as such the proceeding run ex-parte against them. The complainant filed evidence on affidavit in which she demanded that she could not realize the amount from the OP No.1 &2 and no products has distributed in the market, so she assailed to get back the money including interest thereupon that sent to the OP No.1 through OP No.2. The complaint petition is unchallenged one. It was also the obligation of the OP No.1 to make a version regarding the allegation of the complaint.

             So after perusing the complaint petition as well as document in the record we are in a considered opinion to allow the prayer of the complaint in part. 

             As such the OP is deficient in providing service to this complainant and he is also in charge of unfair trade practice. So the demand of the complainant is valid, cogent and at per but not excessive or exorbitant. So the complainant is entitled to get Rs.3,00,000/- including interest @ 10% per annum since date of issuing the demand draft i.e.06.02.2015 till the realization.

4). Whether the complainant proved her 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 is able to prove her case. So, the Opposite Party No.1 is liable to compensate the Complainant as we deem fit and proper.

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get relief(s) prayed for?

As it is already proved in the discussion at point No. 3, the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the Opposite Party cannot be ousted and as such the Complainant is entitled to get relief(s).

                Hence it is ordered that the complaint be and the same is allowed in part, ex-parte against the Opposite Party.

              The Opposite Party No.1 is hereby directed to pay the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- plus interest @ 10% per annum since date of issuing the demand draft i.e.06.02.2015 till the realization and a litigation cost amounting to Rs.4,000/- to this complainant within 45 days from the receiving this  final order.

              The Opposite Party No.1 is also directed to deposit a sum of Rs.5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account for unfair trade practice.

             The OP No. 2 is exonerated from the proceedings.

              No other relief (s) is awarded to the complainant.

        At the event of failure to comply with the order the Opposite Party shall pay fine @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 plain copy of this order be made available and be supplied, free of cost, to the parties on contest in person, Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand under proper acknowledgement/ be sent forthwith under ordinary post to the concerned parties as per rules, for information and necessary action.

           Dictated and corrected by me.

      Member,                                                 Member,                                                     President,