West Bengal

Bankura

CC/82/2014

Debasish Dutta - Complainant(s)

Versus

The State of Wewst Bengal Rep by the Collector Bankura and others - Opp.Party(s)

Jayanta Kr. Mukherjee

10 Aug 2023

ORDER

   IN    THE   DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANKURA

  Consumer Complaint No. 82/2014

      Date of Filing: 01/07/2014

Before:                                        

1. Samiran Dutta                             Ld. President.      

2. Rina Mukherjee                          Ld. Member. 

3. Siddhartha Sankar Bhui            Ld. Member.

 

For the Complainant:  Ld. Advocate Jayanta Kr. Mukhopadhyay

For the O.P. :  Ld. G.P., Bankura

 

Complainant

Sri Debasish Dutta, S/o Late Satya Gopal Dutta, Proprietor of Furniture Center, Lalbazar, Bankura

Opposite Party

1.The State of West Bengal, represented by the Collector, Bankura

2.D.L. & L.R.O., Bankura

                                                                            FINAL ORDER / JUDGEMENT  

Order No.60

Dated:10-08-2023

Both parties file hazira through advocate.

The case is fixed for Argument. After hearing Argument from both sides the Commission proceeds to dispose of the case as hereunder: -

The Complainant’s case is that he being the Proprietor of Furniture Center engaged in trading of various offices and domestic furnitures of different brands / companies participated in the Tender process invited by the O.P. vide Tender Notice No.5364/NAZ/LR, dt.30/11/2012 and being the Lowest Bidder Work Order was issued in favour of the Complainant vide Memo No.398/NAZ/LR, dt.28/01/2013. In accordance with the aforesaid Work Order the Complainant supplied furniture in 22 nos. of B.L. & L.R.O. Offices, Bankura i.e. 48 nos. Almirah, 260 nos. Nilkamal Chair 2135 and 32 nos. Nilkamal Chair 2160 and submitted bill worth Rs.7,31,720/-. The O.P. accepted all the materials without any objection. Thereafter when the Complainant approached the O.P.s for payment of the aforesaid bill amount on different occasions sometimes verbally and sometimes in black and white the O.P.s raised the flimsy ground over the genuineness of the supplied furniture and the entire payment was withheld arbitrarily and illegally in violation of the terms and conditions of the Work Order. The Complainant has therefore approached this Commission for payment of the aforesaid amount with adequate compensation.

                                                                                                                                                                                         Contd……p/2

                                                                                                    Page: 2

O.P.1 and O.P.2 contested the case by filing a written version denying all the material allegations made in the complaint contending inter alia that the Complainant did not supply the furniture as per Work Order within the stipulated period and that too was found defective and duplicate after verification from the competent authority and the Complainant did not replace the same in spite of several reminders and accordingly the claim amount of Rs.7,31,720/- which were drawn in two phases for Rs.3,62,820/- and Rs.3,68,900/- were withheld though the Cheque for the aforesaid amount were issued by the concerned Treasury but ultimately both  the Cheques were to be cancelled as per instruction of the O.P. The O.P.s are therefore not ready and willing to pay the claim amount of the Complainant for all the reasons stated above and as such the Complainant is not entitled to get any relief in this case and his case should be dismissed.

-: Decision with reasons: -

Admittedly the Complainant delivered all the furniture as per Work Order and submitted the bill for Rs.7,31,720/- but on verification all the furniture were found defective and duplicate but in spite of that the Complainant did not replace the furniture despite reminders by the O.P. Authority. There is full of material on record to justify the stand of the O.P.s and the Complainant has nothing to say about the quality of the supplied furniture but the fact remains that the O.P. Authorities accepted all the furniture in good condition without initially raising any objection as to the quality of the furniture. They even did not proceed to cancel the Work Order but instead proceeded to pay the bill amount of the Complainant making the Cheques ready issued from the concerned Treasury but the Cheques were recalled for the simple reason that the furniture supplied by the Complainant are not up to the mark and the Complainant is to replace all the furniture by the genuine ones so as to get the payment.

It reveals from the record that during the pendency of the case an Advocate Commissioner was appointed who submitted his report dated: 11/09/2017 regarding the supply and use of the furniture by the O.P.’s concerned Offices without making any point as to the quality of any of the furniture.

It is no doubt true that the O.P.s being the buyer have every authority to question the quality of the supplied materials and stop the payment. The Complainant being the seller is also reminded of his duty to supply the good quality products and replace the defective ones as and when necessary. In this case the Complainant has however not responded to the direction / instruction of the O.P. Authority in replacing the duplicate furniture which the Complainant ought to have done. But that cannot be the sole ground to withhold the payment of the Complainant during this long period when the supplied furniture are in use at the respective B.L. & L.R.O. Offices. The O.P. being the Government Authority ought to have dealt with the situation by striking a balance between the need of the Complainant and the demand of the O.P.s by deducting some portion of the bill amount as a measure of compensation but instead of doing so the O.P. Authorities are so harsh that they withheld the entire payment even if the Cheques were ready for payment.

                                                                                                                                                                                        Contd…….p/3

Page: 3

The Commission views such act and conduct and attitude of the O.P. Authorities as an act of harassment and also an act of negligence or commission or omission causing loss and injury to the consumer within the definition of deficiency in Section-2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

However, taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances and pros and cons of the matter the Commission fixes the liability of the O.P.s to pay to the Complainant at Rs.6 Lakh after deduction of Rs.1,31,720/- as a measure of compensation for causing loss and injury to the O.P.s for supply of defective furniture.

The case therefore succeeds in part.

Hence it is ordered……..

That the case be and the same is allowed on contest against the O.P.s in part but without cost.

O.P.s are directed to pay to the Complainant Rs.6 Lakh within forty five days from this date in default the law will take its own course.

The Complainant is however warned and cautioned to refrain himself from supplying defective materials in public auction particularly to the Government Authority and in the event of such recurrence the O.P.s are at liberty to blacklist the Complainant from participating in public auction and / or to cancel his requisite License and Registration as an extreme measure.

Both parties be supplied copy of this Judgement free of cost.

 

          ____________________                                        _________________                                   _________________

         HON’BLE   PRESIDENT                                    HON’BLE MEMBER                               HON’BLE MEMBER