State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri Biplab Kanti Pal, Son Of Lt. Birendra ... vs 1.State Of Tripura, Represented By Its ... on 10 April, 2012
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
STATE
CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
TRIPURA
Appeal
Case No.F.A-39/2011
Sri Biplab Kanti Pal,
Son of Lt. Birendra Ch. Paul,
Having office at 31, Akhaura Road,
P.O-Agartala, P.S-West
Tripura,
District- West Tripura
. .
. . Appellant.
Vs
State of Tripura,
Represented by its Chief Secretary,
Government of Tripura, Agartala.
2. The Inspector General of Prisons,
Government of Tripura, Agartala
The Superintendent
of Central Jail,
Agartala.
The Standard
Concern,
Lenin Sarani, A.K. Road, Agartala,
P.O-Agartala 799 001,
P.S-West Agartala, West Tripura.
Sri Bikash Kanti Pal
Of M/S Standard Concern,
Lenin Sarani, A.K.Road,
Agartala - 799 001.
. .
. .
Respondents.
PRESENT :
HONBLE
MR.JUSTICE A.B.PAL,
PRESIDENT,
STATE COMMISSION
MR.B.K.SHARMA,IAS (Retd),
MEMBER,
STATE COMMISSION.
For
the Appellant :
Smt. S.Deb (Gupta) Adv.
Mr.S.Saha,Adv.
For the
Respondents : Mr. A.Sengupta,Adv
Mr.P.Roybarman,Adv
MRS.P.Chakraborty,Adv.
Date
of Hearing : 03-03-2012
Date
of delivery of Judgment :10-04-2012.
J U D G M E N T
Pal,J, This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03-05-2011 passed by the District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in CPA-77 of 2002.
2. The appellant-Sri Biplab Kanti Pal and the 5th respondent Sri Bikash Kanti Pal are brothers. M/S Standard Concern is the 4th respondent represented by two brothers. The complainant-respondents 1, 2 and 3 are the State of Tripura, the Inspector General of Prisons, Agartala and the Superintendent of Central Jail, Agartala. The Jail department of the state government purchased from the M/S Standard Concern a 30 point inter-com system. The total amount paid to the firm was Rs.2,16,421/- including installation charges. Money was received by both Bikash Kanti Pal and Biplab Kanti Pal for the firm. They issued money receipts under their joint signature. But from the very beginning after installation the system had shown defects. The Standard Concern and their representatives were duly informed and asked to rectify the defects. In response they removed several parts of the system for the purpose of repair but no repair was done even after lapse of considerable period. Several correspondences to them failed to evoke any response. The State- complainants then approached the District Forum for appropriate remedies.
3. The District Forum after appreciating the evidence on records came to decide that the firm failed to supply defect free system. Even after receiving complaint from the consumers no repair was done to the defective instruments which were taken away for the purpose of the repair. Accordingly, the firm and its representatives have been directed to replace intercom system with a new one within thirty days from 3-5-2011 when the judgment was delivered or to pay Rs.2,16,421/- to the complainant-respondents with 9% interest thereon from 25-01-1992. A compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,500/- have also been slapped on the firm and to its representatives.
4. The appeal has been preferred against the said judgment only by one brother, Shri Biplab Kanti Pal on the ground that he was not the owner of the firm M/S Standard Concern. The owner of the said firm was Sri Bikash Kanti Pal. Therefore, as the appellant was only an employee of that firm for a short period he should not be held liable to pay any amount. Only to that extent the appeal has been preferred for modification. But Sri Bikash Kanti Pal has not challenged the judgment by preferring appeal. He, however, contested the appeal supporting the judgment. The only question for decision is whether both Biplab Kanti Pal and Bikash Kanti Pal are equally liable to pay the decretal amount or only Bikash Kanti Pal as the proprietor of the firm is responsible for satisfying the entire decree.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Learned counsel for the appellant has taken us through certain documents and evidences regarding ownership of the firm. The work order to supply and install 30 point intercom was given in 1988 and the supply and installation was done in 1989. On 26-2-1989 Sri Bikash Kanti Pal had written a letter to I.G. (Prison) Central Jail, Agartala stating that he was the proprietor of the firm. In support, he enclosed a copy of the proprietorship certificate. He authorized Biplab Kanti Pal to make correspondence and receive payment in favour of M/S Standard Concern. He also attested the signature of Sri Biplab Kanti Pal. Another document about proprietorship is the license issued by Agartala Municipality on 21-7-1988. It was issued in favour of Bikash Kanti Pal to use the premises for commercial purpose under the name Standard Concern. Sri Bikash Kanti Pal could not dispute authenticity of the documents. Evidently, the work order was issued infavour of Standard Concern and the two documents discussed above conclusively prove that Bikash Kanti Paul was the proprietor of the said firm. Though Biplab Kanti Pal received money in connection with the said work but he did the same on the basis of the authority given by Bikash Kanti Pal. Therefore, it can not be said that the appellant is liable to pay any amount of the decree only because he acted for the Standard Concern being authorized by Bikash Kanti Pal.
6. For the reasons aforementioned we find sufficient merit in this appeal and accordingly the same is allowed directing that the entire amount decreed by the learned District Forum shall be paid by Sri Bikash Kanti Pal, respondent herein within a period of one months from today, failing, the rate of interest on the amount shall be 12% p.a. from the date of expiry of one month.
7. There shall be no order as to cost.
MEMBER PRESIDENT State Commission State Commission Tripura Tripura