BEFORE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SHIMLA, H.P.
Consumer Complaint No: 414/2008
Date of presentation: 03.12.2008
Date of decision: 14/09/2009
Arati Chatterjee W/O Shri Sanat Kumar Chatterjee,
Resident of West Line Cottage, Upper Kaithu,
District Shimla, H.P.
… Complainant.
Versus
Susheel Kumar (Susheel) S/O Shri Premu Ram
Bari Chowk, Ladrori, Bilaspur, H.P.
…Opposite Party
For the complainant: Mr. Prince Chauhan, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties: Exparte.
O R D E R:
Per, Charanjit Singh, Member:- This complaint has been filed by the complainant, by invoking the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant alleged that he is constructing a residential house, whereas, the OP is a carpenter by profession, hence he was contacted by the complainant for doing wood work, i.e. making of door/window frames and doors/windows, for which a cheque dated 02.08.2007, amounting to Rs.50,000/- was issued in favour of the OP, which was enchased by him on 02.08.2007. She further alleged that the OP despite receipt of the aforesaid amount did not carry out the work, as promised by him. Hence, it is averred that, there is apparent deficiency in service on the part of the OP and accordingly relief to the extent as detailed in the relief clause be awarded in favour of the complainant.
2. Notice of this complaint was issued to the OP by way of registered letter, which was not received back either served or undelivered, within a period of one month, hence presumption of service was drawn against the OP, vide zimni order dated 04.03.2009.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have also thoroughly scanned the entire record of the case.
4. The complainant in support of his claim, as asserted in the complaint, that he has issued a cheque for an amount of Rs.50,000/- , has placed reliance on photocopy of the same. In addition to this, the complainant as sworn an affidavit in support of the averments as asserted in the complaint, which has not come to be repulsed on behalf of the OP by filing any reply or evidence, hence, it is to be construed that the averments as asserted in the complaint by the complainant is truthful, as such he is entitled for refund of Rs.50,000/- from the OP, which was advanced to him by the complainant for carrying out of the wooden work, which he failed to carry out, as such tantamounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.
5. Consequently, we allow the complaint and direct the OP as under:-
i) That the OP shall refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant;
ii) That the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,000/- shall carry interest, at the rate of 9% per annum, with effect from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e.03.12.2008, till making entire payment of the awarded sum;
iii) That the litigation cost is quantified at Rs.1000/- payable by the OP to the complainant;
iv) That the OP shall comply with this order, within a period of forty five days, after the date of receipt of copy of this order;
6. The learned counsel for the complainant undertook to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules, and since the OPs have not contested the complaint, as such office is directed to sent a certified copy of this order to the OPs through UPC for compliance forthwith. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room.
Announced on this, the 14th day of September, 2009.
(Sureshwar Thakur)
President.
NMehta) (Karuna Machhan) (Charanjit Singh)
Member Member.