Present         (1)     Nisha Nath Ojha,   

                              District & Sessions Judge (Retd.)                                                                                         President

                    (2)     Smt. Karishma Mandal,

                              Member

Date of Order : 16.10.2015

                    Nisha Nath Ojha

1. In the instant case the Complainant has sought for following reliefs against the Opposite party:-

1. To direct the opposite parties to return the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- along with an interest @ 18% per annum from 20.12.2011 till full and final payment of the said amount.
2. To pay Rs. 2,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant.
3. To pay Rs. 10,000/- as litigation costs to the complainant.

2. Brief facts of the case which led to the filing of complaint are as follows:-

1. The complainant with a view to purchase ultrasound machine, contacted with local agent of various ultrasound machine manufacturers. Accordingly one Mr. Jayantu approached the complainant and he explained the features and quality of Logiq C5 Pro Console, 4CRC Convex probe, 7 S. L. Linear probe and Sony Thermal Printer to the complainant and also assured the complainant that he will make arrangement for grant of PNDT certificate from the office of Civil Surgeon, Patna.
2. The complainant accepted the said information as correct and authentic in good faith and in pursuance of such assurance placed the order for Logiq C5. Pro Console with 4CRC Convex probe, 7 S. L. Linear probe and Sony Thermal Printer. Mr. jayantu, after taking order gave two envelopes with company address and directed the complainant to send demand draft by name on given address. 
3. In pursuance of such direction the complainant prepared demand draft bearing D.D. No. 9203131 dated 14.12.2011 for Rs. 1,50,000/- second demand draft bearing D.D. No. 9203132 dated 14.12.2011 for Rs. 4,50,000/- and third demand draft bearing D.D. No. 9203135 dated 20.12.2011 for Rs. 1,50,000/- and sent the same to the opposite party no. 1. ( Annexure – 1, 2 and 3 )
4. The complainant discharged all the obligations imposed upon him and followed all the instruction given by opposite party no. 1.
5. It is relevant to mention that the complainant want to install Logiq C5 Pro Console with 4CRC Convex probe, 7 S. L. Linear probe and Sony Thermal Printer only for the purpose to earn his livelihood by means of self employment.
6. The complainant approached Civil Surgeon office several times and submitted all required documents so that he will get PNDT certificate and also fulfilled all criteria essential for getting PNDT certificate but it is very much unfortunate to state that the complainant failed to get PNDT certificate from the Civil Surgeon office. The complainant also informed the opposite party no. 1 and his local agent that PNDT certificate is not provided/granted to the complainant.
7. The complainant sent a letter to the opposite party no. 2 in which after stating entire facts requested to cancel the order and to refund the amount paid to the opposite party no. 1. ( Annexure – 4 )
8. A certificate dated 25.09.2013 has been issued by Senior Branch Manager, Vijay Bank, Kadamkuan in which it is stated that D.D. No. 9203131 and D.D. No. 9203132 have been presented for collection be Hong Kong and Shaghai Bank at Kolkatta. ( Annexure – 5 )
9. The complainant called upon opposite party no. 2 and 3 through his advocates letter dated 04.10.2013 and requested the opposite party no. 2 and 3 to return the said three D.D. amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- but the opposite parties failed to comply with. ( Annexure – 6 )
10. The opposite party no. 1 sent a reply to the complainant in which it is stated that the company is looking into allegations made by with almost seriousness and the company shall “revert” to the complainant shortly. ( Annexure – 7 )
11. The complainant sent reply to letter dated 17.10.2013 issued under the signature of Mr. Sameem Ahmad Ranju. ( Annexure – 8 )
12. The grievance of the complainant is just and reasonable.
13. The cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and this forum has territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to try the present complaint.
14. It is submitted that the present complaint is being filed within the period as prescribed under section 24A of the Act.
15. The opposite parties have done act of negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice and complainant faced mental and physical harassment.

The facts of this case as asserted by the complainant has been narrated in the foregoing paragraphs.

However for the purpose of recording and finding we are narrating certain facts at the cost of repetition.

It is the case of the complainant that he has placed order for Logig C.S. Pro Console with 4CRC Convex probe, 7 S. L. Linear probe and Sony Thermal Printer through agent of the opposite party no. 1 after agent of opposite party no. 1, convinced him about the utility and efficacy of the machine. Thereafter Vide Annexure – 1, 2 and 3, the complainant sent total amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- by way of D.Ds. the photocopy of the aforesaid D.Ds have been annexed with the complaint petition. Is appears that after sending the D.Ds to opposite party no. 1, the complainant was refused PNDT certificate for installing the machine from Civil Surgeon. Thereafter he requested the opposite parties to cancel the order and return the amount of the D.Ds because aforesaid machine cannot be installed in absence of PNDT certificate issued by Civil Surgeon authority.

It has been asserted by the complainant that the opposite party no. 1 neither returned the amount of Rs. 7,50,000/- received by opposite party no. 1 through D.Ds ( Opposite party no. 1, 2 and 3 ) nor he has supplied the machine.

From judicial record it appears that opposite party 1 and 2 after receiving notice have filed the Vakalatnama but they never filed written statement and as such this case was heard ex – parte as despite allowing several opportunities by this forum, the opposite parties failed to file written statement or take proper steps.

As there is no counter version of the fact asserted by the complainant we are bound to accept the allegation of the complainant in toto.

It is needless to say that from Annexure – 1, 2 and 3 it is crystal clear that the aforesaid D.Ds were in the name of opposite party no. 1 and it has been asserted that the amount of aforesaid D.Ds were received by opposite party no. 1.

In the fact and circumstances of the case discussed above we find and hold that opposite parties have committed deficiency by not returning the amount of D.Ds when the PNDT certificate was denied by Civil Surgeon.

For the reason stated above we direct the opposite party no. 1 to return the amount of D.Ds i.e. Rs. 7,50,000/- to the complainant with an interest @ 10% from the date filing of this case on the aforesaid amount within three months from the date of receipt of this order or certified copy of this order failing which the opposite party no. 1 has to pay an interest @ 12% on the aforesaid amount till the final payment.

We further direct the opposite parties jointly and severally to pay Rs. 25,000/- by way of compensation and litigation costs to the complainant within the period of three months.

Accordingly, this case stands allowed to the extent indicated above.

                                        Member                                                                   President