Date of filing                :    29.01.2018.

Decided on                  :    08.02.2019.

J U D G E M E N T

Bibekananda Pramanik, President – This consumer complaint under section 12 of the C.P. Act, 1986 has been filed by one Ranjan Mondal stated to be the authorized agent of Surajit Das against the O.Ps. named above.

        Complainant’s case, in brief, is as follows :-

       The complainant purchased some furnitures as stated in para-3 of the petition of complaint, valued at Rs.2,43,980/- from the O.p. and those furnitures were delivered to the complainant on 02/10/2016 in packed condition. At the time of such delivery, the complainant could not examine those furnitures but subsequently when he opened those packed furnitures then he found some manufacturing defects and cracks on all the furnitures. Being informed, O.p. sent a carpenter to remove such defects but he failed to do so. O.p. promised to replace those furnitures or to return the consideration money but finally he did not do so. Hence the complaint, praying for refund of Rs.2,43,980/- towards the price of the furnitures and for an order of compensation and cost.

       Registered notice upon the O.p. was duly sent but he refused to accept the notice and he also did not appear for which the case was ordered to be heard ex-parte against him. Hence the ex-parte hearing.

POINT FOR DECISION

          Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs as prayed for?

DECISION WITH REASONS

To prove his case, Ranjan Mondal, who has filed the present complaint, has tendered his written examination-in-chief supported by affidavit in evidence and he has also filed some documents.

At the very outset it appears that Ranjan Mondal, who has filed this case, is not the “Consumer” but he is stated to be the authorized person of one Kanchan Mondal, who is the alleged purchaser of the furnitures in question. No proper letter of authorization by Kanchan Mondal duly supported by affidavit in favour of the present petitioner has been filed in this case. From the record we find that a letter addressed to the President, D.C.D.R.F., Howrah signed by one Kanchan Mondal has been filed in this case. Signature of Kanchan Mondal on the said letter has not been attested by any person and the said letter is not supported by any affidavit. That apart we find from the said letter that the identity of that Kanchan Mondal in the letter has not been disclosed at all stating therein the father’s name, address and other particulars of Kanchan Mondal. So, this letter cannot be treated and accepted as letter of authorization in favour of the present petitioner Sri Ranjan Mondal. Said Kanchan Mondal has also not filed any evidence supported by affidavit. In view of that and since the present petitioner Ranjan Mondal is not the “Consumer” as defined in section 2(1)(d) of C.P. Act, 1986 so the present complaint filed by Ranjan Mondal is not maintainable and as such the petition of complaint is liable to be dismissed.

               Hence,

          it is,

O R D E R E D

that the complaint case no. 40/2018 is dismissed ex-parte.

Let a plain copy of this order be given to the petitioner Ranjan Mondal  free of cost.

Dictated and corrected by me.

(Bibekananda Pramanik)

President, D.C.D.R.F.,

Howrah.