Date of filing:-07/06/2017.
Date of Order:-22/07/2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM(COURT)
B A R G A R H.
Consumer Complaint No. 25 of 2017.
Mr. Amitabh Bose, aged about 46(forty six) years, S/o Sri Amal Kanti Bose, R/o Mandirpada, Nuapada, At/Po. Nuapada, Dist. Nuapada (Odisha), Occupation:- Legal Profession. ... ..... .... Complainant.
-: V e r s u s :-
The Sales Manager, STYLE BAAZAR, Gandhi Chowk, Opp. Gousala, Bargarh, Odisha-768028.
..... ..... ..... ...... Opposite Party.
Counsel for the Parties:-
For the Complainant :- Sri P.K.Acharya, Advocate with other Advocates.
For the Opposite Party :- Sri B.Barik, Advocate with other Advocates.
-: P R E S E N T :-
Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... P r e s i d e n t.
Ajanta Subhadarsinee ..... ..... ..... ..... ..... M e m b e r (W).
Dt.22/07/2019. -: J U D G E M E N T:-
Presented by Ajanta Subhadarsinee, Member (w):-
The Complainant has filed this case U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986, against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service and adopting unfair trade practice.
The brief fact of the case is that the Complainant is a resident of Nuapada and the Opposite Party is the Sales Manager, STYLE BAZAAR, who is carrying his business of ready-made garments and other household articles at Bargarh from whom the Complainant had purchased 17 different items including a Tant Saree by paying a total amount of Rs.3,545/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred forty five)only through his debit card with a due receipt on Dt.17/04/2017 for his personal use. At the time of purchase the Complainant requested the Opposite Party to verify the purchased items for finding defects if any, but the Opposite Party gave him an assurance that the products are best in quality and he could exchange the same, if there would be any defect in the product or he would return back the paid price in case of necessity. Then the Complainant returned to his house of Nuapada and he found that the Sl. No.1(one) item i.e. a Tant Saree is defective one, for which he had paid Rs.1,379/-(Rupees one thousand three thousand seventy nine)only without any discount. Then on the next day the Complainant went to the Opposite Party to exchange the said defective saree and asked him for a fresh piece of the same product and being advised by the Opposite Party the Complainant went to exchange counter and accordingly the Complainant was acknowledged with a exchange slip to show at the sales counter of Opposite Party to exchange the said defected saree. But no fresh piece of that said saree to his choice was found to exchange the defective saree. So the Complainant came to the sales counter to get back his money of Rs. 1,379/-(Rupees one thousand three hundred seventy nine)only the paid price of that said defective saree. Surprisingly the Opposite Party denied to return back the amount paid for the said saree, rather he forced the Complainant to take the same defective saree with a fresh bill of the same amount and used unparliamentary language to the Complainant before the public on the spot, which caused mental agony and harassment. Being the Complainant is a reputed Senior Advocate felt defame in the eyes of public and leave that place without getting any relief from the Opposite Party. Lastly finding no way out the Complainant has filed this case before the Hon'ble Forum to get relief, by keeping the defective saree with him intact, for future reference.
This act of the Opposite Party amounts to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. On the other hand, the Complainant suffered a financial loss, mental agony and physical harassment by the illegal act of the Opposite Party. Alleging unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant prayed for to refund the paid amount for that defective saree i.e. Rs.1,379/-(Rupees one thousand three hundred seventy nine)only by taking the same from him, and has prayed for Rs.30,000/-(Rupees thirty thousand)only towards mental agony and physical stress and Rs.10,000/-(Rupees ten thousand)only for legal expenses along with interest @18% to pay to him.
The Complainant has relied on the following documents to establish his case.
Xerox copy of Debit card money receipt of Rs. 3,545/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred forty five)only, with true copy Dt.17/04/2017.
Sales invoice of Rs. 3,545/-(Rupees three thousand five hundred forty five)only vide CST No. 21915301227, Bill No. POS/07753/17 with true copy Dt.17/04/2017.
Sales invoice of Rs. 1,379/-(Rupees one thousand three hundred seventy nine)only vide Bill No. POS/08184/17 with true copy Dt.18/04/2017.
The above xerox copies were verified with the original ones.
The Forum admitted the complaint petition by perusing it and the documents in its support and by hearing the argument of the Complainant. Notice sent to the Opposite Party for his appearance and version. The Opposite Party appeared before the Hon'ble Forum through his Advocate and filed his version.
As per the version filed by the Opposite Party the complaint is not maintainable and deserved to be dismissed and the Opposite Party is not the Owner or Director of the said shop named as STYLE BAZAR, Bargarh and the Opposite Party is mere an employee of the said shop and performs his duty as per the instructions and guidance of the Owner/Proprietor of the said shop and the Complainant had filed this case with an ulterior motive with some false and concocted story. Therefore the Opposite Party prayed to dismiss the complaint against him with cost to render him justice. But the Opposite Party has not filed any documents in his support. To counter the version of the Opposite Party, the Complainant had filed a petition praying therein to direct the Opposite Party to furnish the proper name and address of the Opposite Party to make him a necessary party but the same was objected by the Opposite Party. On Dt.08/04/2019 the conducting lawyer of the Opposite Party has withdrawn his power from the said proceeding. Then the case was posted for hearing on merit and the same was heard on Dt.03/07/2019 and posted for Order.
The Hon'ble Forum has perused the whole record with the documents and evidences available, hears the advocate for the Complainant. After a careful scrutiny of the same it is found that the Complainant has purchased ready-made 17 items including the said defective saree for his family from the Opposite Party with the money receipt vide Bill No. POS/07753/17 Dt.17/04/2017 through his debit card. By finding the defects in the said saree, on the next day the Complainant came to the Opposite Party to exchange the same and requested him for that. Being advised by the Opposite Party the Complainant went to return counter and accordingly he was acknowledged with a Exchange slip to show at the Sales Counter of Opposite Party to exchange the said defective saree. Despite all endeavor made by the salesman, no alternative fresh piece of the said saree of the choice of the Complainant could be found. Hence, the Complainant came down to sales counter to get back the money Rs.1,379/-(Rupees one thousand three hundred seventy nine)only i.e. paid against the said saree. But the Opposite Party refused to pay back his money rather forced him to take the same defective saree with a fresh bill of Rs.1,379/-(Rupees one thousand three hundred seventy nine)only by using vulgar language to the Complainant in front of the public.
Though the Opposite Party was appeared before the Forum through his advocate and filed his version by denying all the above facts, but remained absent at the time of hearing of the case to disprove the allegations made by the Complainant against him. Rather the Opposite Party has filed a petition stating therein that he is neither the owner nor the director of the shop and he is only an employee under the owner of the shop and performs his duty according to the instructions/guidelines of his employer. This submission of the Opposite Party is not satisfactory. As a Sales Manager, he is responsible for this consumer dispute arise here. It is the duty of the Sales Manager to render proper service and good behavior towards its customer/consumer on the goods supplied by him. The selling of defective saree to it's customer is the guilty of unfair trade practice and the deficiency in service by the Opposite Party.
Again by withdrawing the power of the conducting Advocate for the Opposite Party in the present consumer dispute at the stage of hearing proved that the Opposite Party has nothing to say further in this matter.
Hence, it can be concluded that the Complainant is a genuine consumer of the Opposite Party U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act-1986. And by not providing proper service to the Complainant the Opposite Party is guilty of deficiency in service to the Complainant and adopted unfair trade practice.
In the result the Forum allowed the case of the Complainant and order as follows:-
-: O R D E R :-
The Opposite Party is directed to refund the cost of the defective saree i.e. Rs. 1,379/-(Rupees one thousand three hundred seventy nine)only to the Complainant with an interest of 8% (eight percent) per annum from the date of purchase of said defective saree i.e. Dt.17/04/2017 till date of this Order and Rs.5,000/-(Rupees five thousand)only towards mental agony, physical harassment and litigation charges caused by the Opposite Party to the Complainant within thirty days from receive of this Order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry an interest 18 %(eighteen percent) per annum till the actual realization of the amount.
The Complainant is directed to return back the defective Saree to the Opposite Party immediately after receive of the above awarded amount.
The case is allowed against the Opposite Party and order is pronounced in the open Forum on Dt.22/07/2019 and disposed off accordingly.
Typed to my dictation
and corrected by me.
( Ajanta Subhadarsinee)
M e m b e r.
I agree,
( Sri Krishna Prasad Mishra)
P r e s i d e n t.
Upload by
Sri Dusmanta Padhan
Office Assistant (D.M.A.)
