| District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission |
| South 24 Parganas |
| Baruipur , Kolkata - 700 144. |
| |||||||||
|
| BEFORE: | |
| SHRI DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY PRESIDENT | |
| JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN MEMBER | |
| SMT. SANGITA PAUL MEMBER |
| PRESENT: |
| Final Order / Judgement |
10………….05.05.2021……………..
Today is fixed for delivery of Judgment/final order. Final order containing 5 pages is ready for delivery. It is sealed, signed and delivered in open Forum/Commission. It is, ORDERED That this complaint case be and same is allowed ex-parte. It is held that complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent / O.P of this case and the complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- form the respondent / O.P. The respondent/ O.P. of this case is directed to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant of this case within two months from the date of this order otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute the order as per law. Thus this complaint case be and same is disposed of ex-parte. Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied at free of cost to the parties concerned. The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SOUTH 24-PARGANAS AMANTRAN BAZAR, BARUIPUR, KOLKATA-700 144 C.C. NO._105_ OF 2021
DATE OF FILING DATE OF ADMISSION DATE OF FINAL ORDER 03.09.2021 27.09.2021 05.05.2022
Present : President : Debasish Bandyopadhyay Member : Jagadish Chandra Barman Member : Sangita Paul
COMPLAINANT : Abdul Mannan Sardar, 1 No. Dighir Par, Canning Girls’s School Para, P.S.- Canning, South 24 Parganas, Pin – 743329. Versus O.P/O.Ps : Indiamart Intermesh Ltd., 6th floor, Tower 2, Assotech Business Cresterra, Plot No. – 22, Sector – 135, Noida - 201305, Uttar Pradesh. Debasish Bandyopadhyay, President Brief facts of this case:- The case of the petitioner/ complainant in bird’s eye view is that he is an Indian citizen and has been residing at the address given in the cause title and for the purpose of his livelihood, decided to purchase different oils of fortune brand and the O.P. has provided the complainant the details of a supplier namely SK. Hasanujjman having address E-265, Baishnab Ghata, Patuli, Kolkata – 700094 and thereafter the complainant had made contact with the above noted supplier for supplying different oils of Fortune brand at the residence of the complainant and the said supplier had informed the complainant to pay 50% of the actual quoted amount and then the complainant had paid an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- but surprisingly the deal of the complainant with the above noted supplier was cancelled. It is alleged that the complainant thereafter had made contact with the O.P. for several times either with electronic mail or by sending letters and thereafter the O.P. informed the complainant that the said refund will be generated on behalf of the complainant within seven working days but surprisingly the complainant noticed that the amount paid by the complainant has been transferred to the supplier on 9th October, 2020 leaving the complainant utterly clueless. It has been pointed out by the complainant that instead of refund the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, the O.P. started ignoring and violating the refund request of the complainant although as per promise of the O.P. had to deliver quality product and services to the complainant, the O.P. has miserable failed to do so for which the complainant had to suffer severe loss and became the victim of the purported act of O.P. It is further alleged that series of misconducts from the O.P. has caused a lot of mental agony and harassment to the complainant and thereafter the complainant tried hard to resolve the issue but all the effort of the complainant ended in fiasco. It has also been mentioned by the complainant that thereafter the complainant had sent a legal notice to the O.P. on 29.10.2020 but the O.P. has neither provided the good nor refunded the money. As per version of the complainant side such activities of the O.P. is gross deviation from the service and so complainant has prayed for refunding back the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- along with compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- and also prayed for cost of litigation. The O.P. inspite of receiving notice has neither appeared in this case nor has filed W.V. and as a result of which the District Commission vide order No. 6 dated 10.12.2021 has passed the order that this case is to be proceeded ex-parte against the O.P. POINTS OF CONSIDERATION On the basis of the pleading of the parties, the District Commission for the interest of proper and complete adjudication of this case is going to adopt the following points for consideration:-
EVIDENCE ON RECORD In order to prove the case the complainant has filed evidence on affidavit by himself and also produced series of documents. As the respondent/O.P. is not contesting this case no questionnaire has been filed by the O.P. against the evidence of the complainant. ARGUMENT HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD. LAWYER OF THE COMPLAINANT Regarding this matter it is important to note that the complainant has filed brief notes of argument and in addition to that the Ld. Lawyer of the complainant also highlighted verbal submission at the time of argument. DECISIONS WITH REASONS The first three issues which have been framed of the point of maintainability, cause of action and whether complainant is a consumer in the eye of law, are vital issues and so these three issues are taken up for consideration at first. In this regard it is important to note that as the O.P. has not challenged oral testimony of the complainant and also not challenged documents filed by the complainant. So, the District Commission shall have to rely on the oral and documentary evidence given by the complainant. In this regard the District Commission after going through the oral and documentary evidence of the record finds that this case is maintainable and there is cause of action for the complainant to file this case and the complainant is also a consumer in the eye of law. Thus, the first three issues are decided in favour of the complainant side. The points of consideration depicted in serial No. 4 and serial No.5 are clubbed together and taken up for discussion jointly. For the purpose of proper and complete adjudication of these above noted two issues which are related with the question whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the O.P. or not and whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and litigation cost in this case or not, there is urgent need of scanning the material of this case record. For the purpose of deciding the fate of the above noted two questions and for the purpose of getting answer of the above noted two questions, this District Commission finds that there is necessity of scanning of oral and documentary evidence. In this regard it is important to note that the evidence given by the complainant side has neither been challenged nor been controverter by the O.P. side as no questionnaire has been filed by the O.P. Thus, it is crystal clear that there is no reason to disbelieve the unchallenged and uncontroverted oral testimony and documentary evidence given by the complainant. After going through the evidence given by the complainant and documents filed by the complainant, this District Commission finds that the complainant has paid Rs. 1,00,000/- for getting supply of different types of oils of Fortune Brand from the O.P. but the O.P. has neither supplied the oil nor refunded the money. This matter is clearly depicting that there is gross deviation of service on the part of the O.P. / respondent of this case and for that reason the complainant has suffered financial and economic loss and also has incurred cost of litigation. A cumulative consideration of the above noted discussion goes to show that the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent / O.P. of this case and complainant is also entitled to get compensation and cost of litigation. So, it is accordingly, ORDERED That this complaint case be and same is allowed ex-parte. It is held that complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the respondent / O.P of this case and the complainant is further entitled to get compensation of Rs. 15,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- form the respondent / O.P. The respondent/ O.P. of this case is directed to pay Rs. 1,20,000/- to the complainant of this case within two months from the date of this order otherwise the complainant is given liberty to execute the order as per law. Thus this complaint case be and same is disposed of ex-parte. Let a copy of the order be sent / supplied at free of cost to the parties concerned. The Final Order will be available in the following website www.confonet.nic.in. Dictated and corrected by me. Debasish Bandyopadhyay President |
| [ SHRI DEBASISH BANDYOPADHYAY] |
| PRESIDENT |
| [ JAGADISH CHANDRA BARMAN] |
| MEMBER |
| [ SMT. SANGITA PAUL] |
| MEMBER |
No comments:
Post a Comment