Tripura

StateCommission

A/31/2017

Smt. Purnima Dey - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Manager, Jyoti Bricks Industries - Opp.Party(s)

Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal

20 Nov 2017

ORDER

 Tripura State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Agartala.

 

Case No.A.31.2017

 

 

1. Smt. Purnima Dey,

D/o Late Chandra Mohan Dey,

Chandrapur, Baldakhal Road,

P.O. Reshambagan, P.S. East Agartala,

West Tripura.

… … … … … Appellant/Complainant.

 

                 

 

1. The Manager,

Jyoti Bricks Industries,

Bricks Manufacturer and order Suppliers,

Factory-Noabadi,  Jirania, Tripura West,

Office: C.R. Road,

Agartala, Tripura West.

… … … … … Respondent/Opposite party.

 

Present

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Ch. Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For the Appellant:                                          Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Adv.       

For the Respondent:                                      Mr.Koushik Datta, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment:     20.11.2017.

 

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha, J,

The instant appeal is filed by the appellant, Smt. Purnima Dey, (hereinafter referred to as complainant/petitioner) for enhancement of the award passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, West Tripura, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) vide its judgment dated 19.04.2017 in Case No. C.C. 13 of 2017 whereby and whereunder the learned District Forum allowed the complaint petition filed by the complainant against the respondent, Manager, Jyoti Bricks Industries (hereinafter referred to as opposite party) directing the opposite party to take back the substandard bats supplied and supply 1000 nos. of 1^stclass bricks and 250 1^stclass bats after taking back the bats already supplied. If it is not possible, opposite party is directed to refund Rs.18,500/- to the petitioner and also pay the amount of Rs.1,500/- as compensation, in total Rs.20,000/-. Order is to be complied with within one month, if not complied; it will carry interest @9% per annum.

2. The delay in filing the appeal was condoned earlier and today the matter is fixed for admission hearing.
3. As agreed to by the Ld. Counsel for the parties, the instant appeal is taken up for final disposal at this admission stage. Only question involved in the appeal is whether the award passed by the learned District Forum should be enhanced or not.
4. Heard Mr. Anjan Kanti Pal, Ld. Legal Aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-complainant as well as Mr. Koushik Datta, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-opposite party.
5. Facts of the case needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The complainant, Purnima Dey filed an application before the learned District Forum under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging that on 25.01.2017 she placed an order for supply of 1^stclass bricks to the opposite party Proprietor of  Jyoti Bricks Industries and also paid an amount of Rs.18,500/-. Thereafter, on 30.01.2017 in the evening time, the petitioner saw that some broken bricks were brought in the house of the petitioner. So the petitioner refused to take them, but the employee of the opposite party insisted to accept them and ultimately all those broken bricks were left in the house premises of the petitioner. She also contended that she had received less number of bricks than the bricks ordered to be supplied and she did not get the quality bricks. So she wanted for getting the quality bricks and compensation.

6. Opposite party appeared and filed written statement denying the contention of the complainant. It is stated that in view of the order of the complainant, 1^st class bats and 1^st class quality of bricks were supplied on 30.01.2017 and upon receipt of the bats and bricks, complainant was satisfied with the quality and quantity of the bricks supplied by the opposite party as per specification given by the complainant. So it has been informed that there was not at all any deficiency of service. It is also stated that complainant paid Rs.12,000/- at the time of placing order and thereafter, Rs.6,500/- was paid when the bricks and bats were supplied.
7. Complainant examined herself as P.W.1 and stated that she placed the order for 1250 bricks on 25.01.2017. Bricks delivered on 30.01.2017. She paid Rs.12,000/- and then she paid an amount of Rs.6,500/-, in total Rs.18,500/-. It is also stated that though she placed order for 1250 bricks, but there was shortage of 100 bricks. Complainant also examined another witness, namely, Smt. Sabita Das, P.W.2 who supported the contention of the complainant.
8. Opposite party examined two witnesses, namely, Sri Srijib Saha and Sri Nitai Das one of the partner and Manager of the bricks field respectively. The opposite party admitted the contention of the complainant that she purchased 1250 numbers of bricks and also paid an amount of Rs.18,500/- (Rs.12,000/- + Rs.6,500/-). O.P.W.2 in his deposition on oath stated that bricks were supplied as per order of the complainant and the complainant received goods on satisfaction both in quality and quantity.
9. The learned District Forum considering the evidence on record as well as the documents placed before it passed the impugned judgment.
10. Mr. Pal, Ld. legal aid Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-complainant while urging for enhancement of the amount would contend that the learned District Forum failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus, the impugned order is required to be modified. He further submits that the appellant ordered for total 1250 numbers of 1^st class bricks to which the respondent-opposite party supplied babu class bricks i.e. inferior quality bricks and less in number. As per order, the respondent-opposite party also supplied 3.5 cum brick bats. But the quality of brick bats also appeared substandard. He finally contended that the rate of bricks has by this time been increased. Therefore, it would be proper to direct the respondent-opposite party to supply the bricks and bats to the petitioner as ordered by her or the amount of compensation may be enhanced
11. On the other hand, Mr. Datta, Ld. Counsel has submitted that the learned District Forum rightly decided the matter except the observation regarding the deficiency of service of the opposite party. He further submits that the complainant received the bricks and bats as ordered by her on 30.01.2017 and she lodged complaint before the learned District Forum on 08.02.2017.
12. The opposite party did not prefer any appeal against the findings of the learned District Forum in the impugned judgment. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the opposite party has the right to only submit about the prayer for enhancement of the amount of compensation.
13. We have also heard one of the partner and O.P.W.1, namely, Sri Srijib Saha who submitted that they are doing business since 1994 and there was no such allegation regarding the standard of their bricks except the complaint of the complainant. However, he has no objection if the awarded amount is enhanced from 20,000/- to 24,000/-.
14. We are of the considered opinion that the learned District Forum rightly directed the opposite party to take back the substandard bats supplied and supply 1000 nos. of 1^stclass bricks and 3.5 cum 1^stclass bats after taking back the bats already supplied, but so far as the direction that if the supply of the bricks and bats are not possible, then the opposite party is to refund Rs.18,500/- and also to pay an amount of Rs.1,500/- as compensation to the complainant i.e. in total to pay Rs.20,000/-is concerned, the compensation amount appears to be lower in side.

Therefore, considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we modify the impugned judgment to the extent that the opposite party shall take back substandard bricks and substandard bats  supplied  to the petitioner and supply 1000 number of 1^st class bricks and 3.5 cum of 1^st class brick bats, but if it is not possible to supply the bricks and bats, then the opposite party shall refund Rs.18,500/- to the complainant i.e. the cost of the bricks and bats as paid by the complainant and also pay an amount of Rs.4,000/- instead of Rs.1,500/- as ordered by the learned District Forum as compensation to the complainant for her suffering and mental agony and also pay Rs.1,500/- as cost of litigation, as the learned District Forum did not pass any order regarding the cost of litigation, in total Rs.24,000/-.

The appellant-complainant is also directed to handover the bricks and bats to the opposite party at the time of supplying the 1^st class bricks and bats by the respondent-opposite party or at the time of receiving the aforesaid amount of Rs.24,000/- as awarded.

Respondent-opposite party shall comply with the order of this Commission within a month; if not complied, the aforesaid amount will carry interest @9% per annum.

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed as indicated above.

Supply a copy of this judgment free of cost to both the parties.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

 

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

MEMBER State Commission Tripura

PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura