DIST.CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KHURDA, BHUBANESWAR:
-ooOoo-
C.D.CASE NO.127/ 2022
Mr. Col Subhendra Kumar Prusty, aged about 53 years,
Rabindra Kumar Prusty, Resident at Flat No.3A, Sipra Gardenia,
IRC Village, N/3, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar, Pin – 751015
…. Complainant
-Vrs.-
- The Chiarman (Mr. T.N.Unni),
- The Managing Director (Mr. Kayum Dhanani),
Registered & Corporate Office
Barbeque Nation Hospitality Limited,
“Saket Callipolis, Unit No.601 & 602, 6th floor,
Doddakannalli Village, Varthur Hobli, Sarjapur Road,
Bengaluru – 560035, Karnataka, India.
…. Opp. Parties
For the complainant : Sri B.P.Mohanty & Another (Adv.)
For the O.Ps : Mr. B.Jena & Associates (Adv.)
DATE OF FILING : 27/04/2022
DATE OF ORDER : 27 /12/2022
ORDER
K.C.RATH, PRESIDENT
1. This is an application U/s 35 of the C.P.Act, 2019.
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that, his wife had ordered for some food items from the OPs on 01/01/2022. His wife had paid Rs.1138/- for the food items. However, the food was so ordered was never delivered to the complainant. He raised the matter before the OPs, who apologized for the same. However, since the consideration amount has not been refunded and the complainant suffered mental agony for non-delivery of the food item, he filed this complaint before the Commission.
3. On the other hand, the OPs filed written version stating therein that, the complaint is not maintainable because the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of term as defined in the C.P.Act, 2019. Besides, it is alleged by the OPs that the OPs had engaged an independent agency namely Shadowfax to provide service to the company on principal to principal basis only for delivery of food. The delivery boy did not perform his duty properly for which the Shadowfax terminated the service of the delivery boy. The OPs have also apologized the complainant’s wife and credited the consideration amount to the account of Mrs. Sanjukta Prusty on 11/04/2022. In short, it is submitted by the Ops that, as there is no cause of action the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
4 Perused the materials on record. It is true that, one Mrs. Sanjukta Prusty had ordered some food items and paid Rs.1138/- for the purpose. The food item so ordered, was never delivered to her. However, the Ops have refunded the consideration amount to Mrs. Sanjukta Prusty, before filing of the case in hand. The complainant claims himself to be the husband of Mr. Sanjukta Prusty. Neither he has reflected in the complaint that he has filed the complaint in the representative capacity nor did he file any letter of authorization from Mrs. Sanjukta Prusty to file this complaint petition. It is Mrs. Sanjukta Prusty who ordered for the food item and she is the consumer within the meaning of “Consumer” as defined under the Act. The present complainant even if he is the husband of Mrs. Sanjukta Prusty, cannot take her place before the Commission without any letter of authorization. The present complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the term as defined under the Act. As such, the complaint is not maintainable . Hence it is ordered.
ORDER
The complaint is hereby dismissed on merit against the OPs as not being maintainable. No order as to cost & compensation.
The order is pronounced on this day the 27th December, 2022 under the seal & signature of the President and Member (W) of the Commission.
(K.C.RATH)
PRESIDENT
Dictated & corrected by me
President
I agree
(S.Tripathy)
Member (W)
Transcribed by Smt. M.Kanungo, Sr.Steno
