JUGAL KRISHNA PAUL Vs. ANUP BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Sec. 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against Order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal (hereinafter referred to as the "State Commission") in Appeal No. 738/2016 dated 30.10.2017.

(2.) In this Complaint case, the Petitioner/Complainant stated that on 24.07.2012, he paid Rs.25,000.00 to the Respondent/Opposite Party as an advance money through a cheque for supply and fitting of pallas (wooden shutters of doors & windows) of good quality for 5 doors and 6 windows of his house for a total consideration of Rs.47,000.00. It was agreed by the Respondent that the doors and windows would positively be delivered /supplied on or before 10.09.2012 and the balance amount of Rs.22,000.00 would be paid in instalments. Payment of monthly instalment would commence only after completion of supply and fitting of all the doors and windows. The Respondent failed to deliver/supply the doors and windows by 10.09.2012. The Respondent supplied old and weak pallas made of ply wood/plank for two doors as a temporary measure. Thereafter, in the first week of Oct., 2012, the Respondent supplied and fitted pallas for 1 door and 4 windows only out of the total order, without giving any Bill/Cash Memo and took away one old ply wood/plank palla. After one or two days, it was found that a good portion of pallas supplied were made of poor quality and decayed timber covered/hidden with putty and /or primer. Thus, on 10.10.2012 the Petitioner requested the Respondent to replace the same which was refused. The Respondent neither replaced nor supplied the remaining material as contracted with the Petitioner. After waiting for more than a year, considering the imminent/ongoing security threats and other problems faced by the Petitioner, he purchased pallas for 2 doors and 4 windows at a cost of Rs.26,000.00 from another supplier. On 19.04.2014, the Petitioner also sent a letter to the Respondent, but in vain. Hence, the Complaint was filed.

(3.) The Complaint was contested by the Respondent reiterating that the Petitioner had no cause of action to file this case. As per the contention of the Respondent, he gave the estimate for pallas of doors and windows to the Petitioner amounting to Rs.47,000.00, but to attain wrongful gain the Petitioner stated the estimated cost as contract between them in the Complaint. When the estimate for the pallas of doors and windows was given, construction works of the dwelling unit of the Petitioner had not been completed due to which the Respondent could not measure the accurate size of the pallas. Thus, no intentional latches and / or negligence could be attributed on part of the Respondent. Moreover, it was agreed between them that the Petitioner would inform the Respondent after completion of the floor of the said dwelling flat, but the Petitioner did not do so. The Respondent in good faith delivered two Doors Pallas on temporary basis for the safety and security of the said dwelling flat, with a condition to replace the same after taking actual measurement of the gap for Door and window pallas of the room/rooms, after completion of the entire floor work of the flat. It was further reiterated that after waiting for so long, the Respondent went to the Petitioner to obtain information regarding the Completion of the floor work from the Petitioner, but he was abused in slang and vulgar language by the Petitioner.