Hon’ble Mr. Haradhan Mukhopadhyay, President.

The case record is taken up for passing final order.

The grievance of the Complainant in black and white took the shape of the complaint of which the basic fact is that the Complainant/ Petitioner Sri Ranjit Barman is an unemployed youth. As per the advertisement the Complainant wanted to purchase an Auto rickshaw from the Manager, Mahalaxmi Automobiles under Gatidhara prokalpo, N.H. 17, Kalerpar, P.O. Nilkuthi Baburhat, P.S. Pundibari, Dist- Cooch Behar. The Complainant as per demand of the OP paid Rs.3,000/- by money receipt No.5 on 14.08.19, Rs.2,000/- by money receipt No.6 on 19.08.19 and Rs.25,000/- by money receipt No.80 on 27.12.19. Thus a total sum of Rs.30,000/- was paid to the OP Company by the Complainant and accordingly the OP signed on some sanctioned paper of Gatidhara prokalpo. But the OP did not deliver the said vehicle. Subsequently the Complainant went to the show room of the OP but to no effect, despite false assurance given by the O.Ps. Due to such misdeed of the OP the Complainant suffered mental pain and agony as well as financial loss due to deficiency in service. Subsequently the Complainant served a legal notice to the OP through his Advocate S.K. Sah on 19.07.21 which the OP received on 26.07.21 but to no effect. Accordingly the Complainant was compelled to file the present case against the OP. The cause of action for the present case arose on 14.08.19, 19.07.19, 27.12.19 and 19.07.21 and lastly on 26.07.21. The Complainant therefore prayed for refund of Rs.30,000/- alongwith interest, Rs.2 Lakh for deficiency in service, Rs.1 Lakh for earning capacity and the litigation cost of Rs.10,000/-.

The OP preferred not to contest the case in as much as the finding of the Court  vide order No.7 dated 28.02.2022 discloses that despite service of summon the OP did not turn up.

The Complainant in order of establish his case adduced evidence by filing evidence on affidavit and also filed the documents. The specific evidence of the Complainant through affidavit stands unchallenged and un-discarded because of the fact that the OP preferred not to contest the case. The documents filed by the Complainant revealed that the Complainant is a consumer under the OP. There is no material within the four corner of the case record to come to any different finding than to hold that the Complainant is a consumer under the C.P. Act. 

The evidence further depicts that the Complainant Ranjit Barman paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- on 14.08.19, Rs.2000/- on 19.08.19 and Rs.25,000/- on 27.12.19 to the OP. The original receipt of payment of the said sum of Rs.30,000/- to the OP Mahalaxmi Automobiles are  the valid document to show that the Complainant paid  the said money for getting service by purchasing the vehicle in dispute. The OP duly received the said money but did not deliver the said vehicle to the Complainant.

The grievance of the Complainant also intimated to the OP before filing the instant case. Accordingly the Complainant had no alternative but to send legal notice to the OP which he did on 19.07.21 through his Advocate S. K. Sah. Despite service of the legal notice the OP did not act positively which driven the Complainant to file the case before the Commission.

The entire averment of the complaint and the evidence on affidavit as well as the documents filed by the Complainant stands unchallenged and undiscarded in as much as the OP preferred not to contest the case. Thus after assessing the entire evidence on record, the Commission holds that the OP despite receiving the money from the Complainant did not deliver the vehicle in dispute and as such this misdeed of the OP tantamounts to unfair trade practice and the same led the Complainant to suffer mental pain and agony.

The discussion made herein above and observation found thereon led the Commission to come to the evident that the Complainant successfully prove the case against the OP up to hilt.

In the result the case of the Complainant succeeds ex-parte.

Hence, it is

Ordered

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed ex-parte against the OP with cost of Rs.10,000/-. The Complainant do get an award of Rs.30,000/- for refund of the price of the vehicle, Rs.2 Lakh for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony Rs.1 Lakh for loss of earning and Rs.10,000/- for litigation cost. The OP is directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.30,000/- towards the refund of the price for vehicle, Rs.2 Lakh for deficiency in service and mental pain and agony, Rs.1 Lakh for loss of earning capacity and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation cost, total Rs.3,40,000/- within one month from the date of passing the order failing which the OP shall pay to the Complainant an interest of 6% per annum on the awarded sum from the date of passing the order till the  date of realisation.

Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the concerned party by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action as per rule.

The copy of the Final Order be also available in the official website: www.confonet.nic.in.

Dictated and corrected by me.