Date of Filing: 09-03-2015 Date of Final Order: 29-03-2016
The brief facts of the complaint as culled out from the record is that the Complainant, Sri Parimal Nag is running a wholesale business namely Swasti Enterprise at Jorai, Cooch Behar. On 30/01/2011 the Complainant was engaged into an agreement with the O.P. No.1, the Managing Director of Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai by depositing Rs.1,75,000/- as a security money for whole sale dealer and sale of Biscuits, Confectionary and proprietary foods. After entering the said agreement, the Complainant started business with the O.Ps and he has always received the different types of products in various occasions from the O.P. No.2, the Manager, Lalchand Company, Fulbari is a depot of Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. as per his requirements with impress a rubber stamp (Swasti Enterprise) along with his signature.
Subsequently, the Complainant has received a bill from the O.P. No.1 on 20/06/2013 which reveals that the Complainant received goods from the O.P. No.2 on 15/10/2012, INNV No.3368, amount of Rs.1,00,135/- as well as the O.Ps are creating pressure to repayment the said bill amount to the Complainant. But on scrutiny it was found that the Complainant neither ordered the said goods nor received the said goods from the O.P. No.2, which is manipulated one illegally derive some monetary gain from the Complainant. Afterwards the Complainant sent a letter to Biman Kundu (ASM), Parle Biscuit Pvt. Ltd. and the O.P. No.1, the Managing Director, Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai also the O.P. No.2, the Manager, Lalchand Company, Fulbari for redressing the aforesaid matter but all were in vain. By not getting any satisfactory result from the O.Ps, the Complainant sent a legal notice by registered post with A/D on 12/08/2014 to the O.P. No.1 & 2 for redressing the aforesaid matter and the said notice was received by the O.Ps on 16/08/2014 & 19/08/2014 respectively. But till now the concern authority did not pay any heed towards the Complainant. Presently the O.Ps are not receiving the Complainant’s order of products or do not supply any goods as per terms and conditions of the agreement. In this juncture the Complainant made several contacts for receiving the order and supply the different types of goods but no response from the ends of the O.Ps. Thus, the Complainant is suffering from mental pain & agony, unnecessary harassment and business loss. The O.Ps also adopted their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by issuing such false bill Rs.1,00,135/-.
Hence, the Complainant filed the present case praying for issuing a direction upon the O.Ps to withdraw the false bill amount Rs.1,00,135/- which was sent to the Complainant on 20/06/2013 and running business with the Complainant and also to pay (i) Rs.30,000/- for unfair trade practice and deficiency in service adopting by the O.Ps, (ii) Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation for mental pain & agony, unnecessary harassment and business loss and (iii) Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs, besides other relief(s) as the Forum deem fit, as per law & equity.
It appears that in spite of due service of Notice upon the O.P. No.1, the Managing Director, Parle Products Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai and the O.P. No.2, the Manager, Lalchand Company, Fulbari is a depot of Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. both O.Ps did not turn up before the Forum and accordingly the case proceeded in Ex-parte against them.
In the light of the facts of the complaint the following points necessarily came up for consideration.
POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION
- Is the Complainant a Consumer as per Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986?
- Has this Forum jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint?
- Have the O.Ps any deficiency in service by repudiating the claim of the Complainant and are they liable in any way?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to get relief/reliefs as prayed for?
DECISION WITH REASONS
We have gone through the record very carefully, peruse the entire documents in the record also heard the argument in Ex-parte at a length.
Point No.1.
The Complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P also deposited Rs.1,75,000/- as a security money. The Complainant deposited the said amount for running his whole sale business under name and style Swasti Enterprise. The Complainant running his business for his livelihood. For which we are inclined to hold that the Complainant is a consumer U/S 2(1)(d)(ii) of the C.P. Act, 1986.
Point No.2.
The all O.Ps are residing at the outside jurisdiction of this Forum. The goods purchased by the Complainant were delivered and used at Jorai under the jurisdiction of Cooch Behar district. The Complainant carried on his business also at Jorai. In this juncture, we attract Section 11 (i)(C) and as per the said section the jurisdiction would lie with the district Forum where the cause of action has arisen, whether wholly or in part. In the present case the cause of action arose in Jorai, where the goods were physically received and utilized. Considering the above and relied on ruling reported in 2014 CJ 523 (NC) cited by the Complainant we are hold our considered opinion that this Forum rightly exercised jurisdiction the present complaint.
Point No.3 & 4.
Evidently, the Complainant entered into an agreement with the O.P Company for running his whole sale business on 30/01/2011. The Complainant obtained whole sale dealership for selling the goods of the Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. From February, 2012 (Annexure-“A”). As per agreement, the O.P Company will supply the products as per the requirements of the Complainant.
Annexure-“A-1” series reveals that the Complainant deposited Rs.1,75,000/- to the O.P. Company through two Demand Drafts of S.B.I dated 19/01/2012. The Complainant carried on his business by receiving the products from the O.P Company at Jorai.
Annexure-“B” reveals that the O.P Company through Zonal States Manager by a letter dated 20/06/2013 demanded Rs.1,00,135/- for supplying the products against Invoice No.3368 of the above amount. The bill raised by the O.P is hazy and incomprehensible.
Annexure-“C” is the letter dated 24/01/2014 by the Complainant to Sri Biman Kundu, (ASM), Parle Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. depicts that the Complainant asked a correct bill as he did not receive any bill or any goods from Parle Products Pvt. Ltd. against the Bill No.3368 dated 15/10/2012 amounting to Rs.1,00,135/-. The Complainant also alleged that the receiving signature on the said bill is totally forged.
Annexure-“D” is the lawyer Notice upon the O.P Company dated 12/08/2014 from which it is crystal clear that the Complainant did not receive the goods as per the said alleged bill being No.3368 dated 15/10/2012 and he tried to brought the matter to the notice of the O.P Company but even after receiving lawyer notice the O.Ps did not take any step.
The Complainant in his complaint petition as well as in evidence on affidavit stated that he never received the goods as per the bill dated 15/10/2012 but the O.P issued one fake bill as there is no impression of rubber stamp of the agency of the Complainant.
In the present case even after paper publication, the O.P No.2 did not appear before this Forum that means the O.P has nothing to challenge the allegation made by the Complainant. Moreover, the O.P. No.1 did not come forward before the Forum despite receiving the notice. Thus, it is reasonably be presume that the facts of the present case is within the knowledge of the O.P. No.1 but simply to avoid the terms and conditions as laid down in the agreement the O.Ps did not appear before this Forum and the O.Ps have nothing to contest the case.
The Complainant by swearing an affidavit frankly stated that since a long period the O.P. did not supply any goods or receiving any order i.e. beyond the terms and conditions of the agreement. By not receiving the goods from the O.P Company, the Complainant did not able to run his business smoothly for which deficiency in service cannot be ruled out against the O.Ps.
In this juncture, reliance has been placed upon ruling cited by the Ld. Agent for the Complainant reported in 2013 (1) CPR 294 (NC) where in the Hon’ble National Commission pleased to observe that once the parties entered into a work contract, the Complainant is entitled to file claim on account of deficiency in service even after termination of the contract.
It is also pertinent to mention that even after repeated persuasion by the Complainant; the O.P did not take any step which would be really helpful to the Complainant as a bonafide customer/consumer of the O.P Company.
Be that as it may, considering the above facts and circumstances, it is very much clear that the O.P. Company stopped to supply the goods to the Complainant during the validity of the agreement also issued a fake bill demanding Rs.1,00,135 /- whimsically for which the Complainant suffered huge mental pain and agonies. The said bill does not bear the proper seal and signature of the Agency of the Complainant. Thus, the act and conduct of the O.P Company is tantamount to Unfair Trade Practice. The O.Ps have to supply the goods against the order of the Complainant as per terms and condition of the agreement dated 30.01.2011. The O.Ps stopped supply of goods as per requirements of the Complainant by violating the terms and conditions of the agreement, that also tantamount to deficiency in service by adopting the arms of Unfair Trade Practice.
Furthermore, the allegations of the Complainant against the O.Ps remain uncontroverted and stand proved.
In the light of the foregoing discussion and materials to its entirety, we have no hesitation but to hold that the Complainant has been able to prove the deficiency in service of the O.Ps. for which the Complainant is entitled to get relief.
Thus, the Complaint succeeds by unchallenged testimonies.
ORDER
Hence, it is ordered that,
The present Case No. CC/19/2015 be and the same is allowed in Ex-parte with cost of Rs.5,000/- but in part.
Both the O.P. Nos.1 & 2 are directed to withdraw the fake bill and to pay the Complainant Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for loss of business of the Complainant and Rs.30,000/- for deficiency in service of the O.Ps which caused severe mental pain and agony of the Complainant. The O.Ps are further directed to stop the unfair trade practice and not to repeat the same. The entire order shall comply by the O.Ps jointly and/ or severally within 45 days failure of which the O.Ps shall have to pay Rs. 100/- for each day’s delay and the amount to be accumulated shall be deposited in the State Consumer Welfare Fund.
Let a plain copy of this Order be supplied to the parties concerned by hand/by Registered Post with A/D forthwith, free of cost, for information & necessary action, as per rules.
Dictated and corrected by me.
President in- charge President in- charge
District Consumer Disputes District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Cooch Behar
