Date of filing:14.03.2013 Date of disposal:09.12.2014
Complainant: Tapasya Mitra, C/o. Mohan Malab (Advocate), 7-C Indra Colony, Mala Road,
Kota Junction Kota, Rajasthan-3240002.
-VERSUS-
Opposite Party: The Stores Manager, Tanishq Store, Near Peerless inn, City Centre,
P.O.-Durgapur, Dist.-Burdwan.
Present : Hon’ble President: Sri Udayan Mukhopadhyay
Hon’ble Member : Smt. Silpi Majumder
Appeared for the Complainant: Ld. Advocate Sukumar Mondal.
Appeared for the Opposite Party: Ld. Advocate Sanyuk Banerjee.
JUDGEMENT
The short case of the complainant as unfolded is that initially she had opened an account in Kota Showroom, Rajasthan of the O.P. under Golden Harvest Scheme with a monthly deposit of Rs.10,000/- vide A/c. No.1184, customer No.900103327681 and Pass Book No. Kot. 725633. Thereafter, in some times of June, 2012 the complainant transferred the aforesaid account to Durgapur Branch of the O.P. Accordingly on 30th June after 1 P.M. the complainant went to the showroom of O.P. and submitted eight months payment receipt along with her pass book and purchased a Bangle of Gold worth Rs.81,300/- approximately and also paid cash amount of Rs.1300/- in order to fulfill the actual price of golden Bangle.
It has alleged that thereafter the complainant was arrested with a conspiracy of Kota Police from the showroom of the O.P. on account of alleged false case initiated by one unknown fellow Printam Singh,S/o. Jasbir Singh resident of Kota, Rajasthan against the innocent complainant and she was confined into the showroom of the O.P. from 1 O’clock to 4.45 P.M. and lady staff of the showroom forced her to sign some papers without giving opportunity to read out the same. It has stated that Showroom Manager of the O.P. and Kota Police (Rajasthan) stated that purchased bangle of the complainant was seized in the aforesaid police case. But ultimately in the final report of the police case, police informed that there is no such seizure and no seizure list was prepared and Kota Police (Rajasthan) has denied the same. The complainant further claimed that the Bangle is still in the custody of the O.P. So, CCTV footage of the O.P. company will apply prove the same. It has claimed that inspite of continuing the Golden Harvest Scheme, the complainant did not get any service or benefit from the O.P. rather she has been suffering from both mental and physical agony, which is caused due to aforesaid acts of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the O.P.s, for which claimed Rs.1,81,300/- in four head mentioned in the Para-4 of the written complaint along with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of judgment. This complaint is supported by an affidavit.
The O.P. has filed written version and has denied all the allegation leveled against them. The positive case of the O.P. is that admittedly the complainant under the scheme of Tanishq started depositing money and ultimately her account had been transferred to the Tanishq, Durgapur and it is also admitted that complainant came to purchase the ornament from the Tanishq, Durgapur and after making the due payment and adjusting amount, she took the delivery of ornament and went out from the show room of the Tanishq, Durgapur and thereafter, she might have been arrested. But this O.P. has no connection or concerned in any manner. This answering O.P. never stated to the complainant to any effect concerning the matter of Police Case. But complainant has filed a police case against this O.P. which has been numbered and registered as Durgapur Police Case No.328/2013, in which the police officials of Durgapur, Police Station has submitted the final report treated as false after concluding the investigation. It has claimed that rhythm of allegation of the complainant in the police case and the instant case are different in nature which itself speaks to the effect of falsity of the case of the complainant. More over the case suffer from drawback of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. It has mentioned that CCTV footage of Tanishq, Durgapur under a computerized system only gives back up of footage of prior seven days and not more than that system is maintained in all showroom of Tanishq. Hence, prays for dismissal of the complaint.
Point for consideration in this case is;
1.Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the
part of the O.P.?
DECISION WITH REASON
Admittedly complainant had scheme of Tanishq i.e. Goden Harvest Scheme and initially deposited money at Rajasthan and thereafter transferred to Tanishq, Durgapur Branch. It is also admitted that complainant came to purchase the golden ornament from Tanishq, Durgapur through this scheme and paid cash Rs.1,378/- and balance amount of Rs.80,000/- through that scheme.
The dispute started thereafter. It is the claim of the O.P. that she took delivery of the ornament and went out of the showroom of Tanishq, Durgapur. But complainant has claimed that she paid entire money and at that time a conspiracy was going on with one Pritam Singh, S/o. Jasbir Sing resident of Kota, Rajasthan who alleged false case against the complainant and thereafter in connivance with the Showroom Manager and Kota Police she was arrested and she was told that the gold ornament was seized in that criminal case. But ultimately she came to know that there was no seizure list was prepared by the Kota Police.
We are aware that the said Tanishq showroom having facility with CCTV footage. So, when the dispute was started in the said showroom it was the preliminary duty of the Showroom Authority including the Manager to keep the back up of footage for the interest of goodwill of Tanishq Showroom over the surrounding country. But in evitable did not happen. It should be mentioned here that it is the case of the O.P. that the complainant took the gold ornament after payment and left the showroom. So, they are not aware regarding the whereabouts of criminal cases and whether complainant was arrested or not.
But if we meticulously perused all the documents and circumstances then the cat will comes at from the bag. That is from the arrest memo which is lying in the case record it appears that complainant was arrested on 30.6.2012 at 16.45 hours at Tanishq City Centre P.S.-Durgapur, West Bengal in connections with Bimganjmandi, Kota City P.S. Case no.193/12 dated 23.5.2012 U/s 420, 467, 468, 471, 472 and 120BIPC. Be that as it may we are not concerned with the alleged offence. But we are concerned with the time date and where she was arrested. It further appears from tax invoice of Tanishq which has submitted on the date of argument by the Ld. Advocate of Tanishq and the said documents is also shows that the same was kept in their official file since punching of whole suggest the same. Form that documents it appears that tax invoice was issued on 30.6.2012 at 2.48 PM, if that be so, then according to O.P. the ornament was delivered at that time. Can it be believed that from 2.48 PM on 30.6.2012 the complainant was waited outside the Tanishq Showroom till 16.45 hours for her arrest in that Kota Case as stated above. These circumstances clearly demonstrate that the claim of the O.P. is not dependable in the eye of law. Rather the complainants’ case that she was confined into the showroom of the O.P. from 1 O’clock to 4.45 p.m. and a lady staff of the show room created pressure to the complainant to sign some papers without giving opportunity to read out the same, is more and more dependable and believable and that time definitely it was not in the mind set up of the lady complainant to take the delivery of her purchased gold.
The totality of the circumstances clearly suggested that there was a connivance with Showroom Manager and Kota police Authority, for which it was possible to arrest her at Tanishq Showroom at 4.45 PM (16.45 O’clock). It should not be out of record that initially we have tried to bring CCTV footage from Tanishq Showroom taking assistance of I.C., Durgapur City Centre, but no such assistance available and the matter was informed to Commissionerate of Police Asansol but result was same. Thereafter, we have informed the matter to IG, Eastern Region, Durgapur and also Secretary, Consumer Affairs Department and a letter was received from the Assistant Secretary vide Memo No.185-CA/Estt./O/5C-12/12 dated 27.1.2014 wherefrom we came to learn that a request was issued to take necessary action for extending co-operation regarding D.F. Case No.54/2013 of this forum to the Asst. Secretary, Home, Police Branch, Nabanna, 385, Sarat Chatterjee Street, Howrah-711102. But the CCTV footage was not sent. Even no reply has comes to our ends from the O.P. except in the Written Version that CCTV footage of this Tanishq, Durgapur under a computerized system only gives back up of footage of prior seven days and not more than that system is maintain in all Showroom of Tanishq. But we respectfully disagree because when there is a dispute over the issue on 30.6.2012, the said back up of the footage ought to have kept for safety and goodwill of the O.P. But in evitable did not happen. This act is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and adverse presumption should be drawn up U/s 114(g) of the Evidence Act, the best evidence with held and if produced then it will go against the O.P. So, this case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice is partly on documentary evidence i.e. payment was made from their Tax Invoice No.DTB/CM/1295 dated 30.6.202 at 2.45PM and partly on the basis of cumulative effects of the circumstances which the lady complainant have to face after payment in the showroom of O.P. We have already stated that no prudent person will wait for his/her arrest after delivery of the goods at 2.48 PM till 16.45 O’clock in the same vicinity. So, the O.P. is aware all the entire episode and their involvement with the unfair trade practice cannot be brushed aside on a moment scrutiny.
With that observation we are sorry to accept the baseless story as prepared by the O.P. in order to grab the golden ornament taking advantage of the arrest of an educated lady complainant. It should not be out of place in this regard that after deposit of documents of gold scheme the same is checked by the concerned persons of the showroom and thereafter upon the choice of the party regarding gold ornaments, the value of the same ornament is being assessed and thereafter asked the party to pay the amount and after payment the delivery is made from the delivery counter on verification of the receipts. So, in this case payment was made and thereafter all the episode started one after another. That is how the complainant is deprived to get her golden bangles as well as receipt of payment due to unfair trade practice of the O.P. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED
that the application U/s 12 of the C.P. Act is allowed on contest . The O.P. is directed to refund Rs.81,378/- together with compensation of Rs.5000/- within 45 days from this date of order, failing which interest will carry w@ 12% p.a. on Rs.81,378/- on and from 30.6.2012 to till its realization. i.e. from the date of payment to till its realization. In default complainant is at liberty to execute the order through this Forum. Let the plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties for their information.
(Udayan Mukhopadhyay)
Dictated and corrected by me. President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Udayan Mukhopadhyay)
President
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
(Silpi Majumder)
Member
D.C.D.R.F., Burdwan
