West Bengal

Nadia

CC/95/2023

KANU ADHIKARY - Complainant(s)

Versus

UTPAL DAS, (MEMBER OF RAMPRASAD WELFARE MISSION GOVT. REGD. NGO) - Opp.Party(s)

DIPAYAN SAHA

27 Sep 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NADIA
170,DON BOSCO ROAD, AUSTIN MEMORIAL BUILDING.
NADIA, KRISHNAGAR
 
Complaint Case No. CC/95/2023
( Date of Filing : 08 Sep 2023 )
 
1. KANU ADHIKARY
S/O- LATE GOPAL CHANDRA ADHIKARY, RANAGHAT JAGPUR ROAD DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR S.C./S.T. DEVELOPMENT SOCIETY, SITUATED AT JAGPUR ROAD, (NEAR RANAGHAT SUB DIVISIONAL HOSPITAL) P.O.- ANULIA, P.S.- RANAGHAT, DIST- NADIA, PIN- 741255, RESIDNG AT 123 NOW 209, SWAMI VIVEKANANDA SARANI, RAJBAGANPARA,
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. UTPAL DAS, (MEMBER OF RAMPRASAD WELFARE MISSION GOVT. REGD. NGO)
C/O- MRS. KRISHNA DAS, (MEMBER OF RAMPRASAD WELFARE MISSION GOVT. REGD. NGO) NIRANJAN SAMAJPATI SARANI, (NEAR SARKAR BAZAR CHOWMATHA MORE), BALIAGHATA, NABANAGAR, P.S.- BIJPUR, DIST- 24 PGS(N), PIN- 743136
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA SAMADDER MEMBER
 HON'BLE MR. NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY MEMBER
 
PRESENT:DIPAYAN SAHA, Advocate for the Complainant 1
 
Dated : 27 Sep 2023
Final Order / Judgement

CC/95/2023

 

ORDER NO.04

DATED:27.09.2023

         

Today is fixed for admission hearing.

          Ld. Adv. for the Complainant is present.

 Hd. Ld. Adv for the complainant. Perused the record.

 Perused the document filed by the complainant.

We find that the complainant alleged in the Para 2 that OP agreed to supply raw materials  and he  transferred Rs. 2,30,000/- through RTGS to the  OP. He also paid Rs. 1,00,000/- in favour  of the OP but OP  did not follow his promise.

          Complainant made several information about this matter to the OP but in vain. Thereafter he sent an Ld. Advocate’s notice through his Advocate Dipayan Saha on 23.07.2018 and same was refused by the OP .Complainant gave another notice  issued by Ld. Advocate  Dipayan Saha on 31.12.2021 and OP received the same on 02.01.2023  but he is maintaining silence.

  1. On perusal of record we find that complainant could not produce any documents regarding agreement of aforesaid transaction.
  2.    OP is not a business man nor the authorized dealer.
  3. Complainant did not file any complaint before this Commission within 2 years from the date of issue of Ld. Advocate’s letter dtd. 23.07.2018.
  4. He did not pay cost of Rs. 200/- as per order dtd. 14.09.2023 and he also did not pay Rs.100/- as per order dtd. 22.09.2023.

 

In view of the above we find that the complainant has failed to established prime facie case.

Moreover his grievance is also barred by limitation.

Accordingly, we find that the present case is not fit for admission.

Hence

It is ordered.

Present case vide no. CC/95/2023 is dismissed being not admitted.

                   

          Member                                   Member                        President

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. DAMAN PROSAD BISWAS]
PRESIDENT
 
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA SAMADDER]
MEMBER
 
 
[HON'BLE MR. NIROD BARAN ROY CHOWDHURY]
MEMBER
 

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.