Delhi

East Delhi

CC/923/2013

DEEPAK JAIN - Complainant(s)

Versus

AMIT DUA - Opp.Party(s)

28 Sep 2018

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

 

C.C. NO. 923/13

 

Shri Deepak Jain

8/72, Ram Street

Vishwas Nagar, Delhi                                                 ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

Amit Dua (Proprietor/Authorised Signatory)

M/s. A.D. Cuisine

18-B/2, Gobind Niwas, Flat No. 6

Dev Nagar, Karol Bagh

New Delhi – 110 005                                                        …Opponent

 

Date of Institution: 21.10.2013

Judgement Reserved on: 28.09.2018

Judgement Passed on: 01.10.2018

 

CORUM:

Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

Dr. P.N. Tiwari (Member)

Ms. Harpreet Kaur Charya (Member)

 

Order By: Sh. Sukhdev Singh (President)

 

 

JUDGEMENT

          This complaint has been filed by Shri Deepak Jain against              Mr. Amit Dua, Proprietor of M/s. A.D. Cuisine (OP) under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 with allegations of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. 

2.       The facts in brief are that the complainant Deepak Jain through his relative Mr. Satish Jain, booked on 24.08.2012 catering for wedding of his sister to be held on 19.01.2013.  He made a payment of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 

          Due to unavoidable circumstances, the complainant had to cancel the booking.  He made a request for refund.  He was given     8 post dated cheques with the amount of Rs. 25,000/- each amounting to Rs. 2,00,000/-, drawn on Punjab National Bank which were dishonored.  The complainant was requested by OP not to take action for dishonoring of the cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act as they will make the payment against the dues. 

          He has stated that the complainant was in shock of breakup of the wedding of his sister and the OP was harassing and torturing not to return the hard earned money to the complainant.  This act of the OP is stated to be arbitrary which also comes in the category of deficiency in service.  Thus, he has prayed for directions to OP to refund the amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- alongwith 18% interest; to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental pain, agony and harassment and Rs. 25,000/- towards litigation charges.   

3.       In the reply, filed on behalf of Mr. Amit Dua, Proprietor of      M/s. A.D. Cuisine (OP), they have stated that there was no deficiency in service.  They have not provided any service to the complainant.  Complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.  There was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP.  The complainant has no locus standii to file the complaint.   

          OP had received an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards booking for catering to his function held on 19.01.2013 at City Park Green.  Shri Satish Jain had cancelled the booking for catering.  On the said date, they had not booked any other catering except of Mr. Satish Jain which he got cancelled.  They have also suffered a huge financial loss due to cancellation.  They have denied other facts also.   

4.       The complainant has filed rejoinder to the WS of OP, wherein he has controverted the pleas taken in the WS and reasserted his pleas.

5.       In support of its case, the complainant have examined himself.  He has deposed on affidavit.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the complaint.  He has exhibited the documents such as copy of letter dated 26.08.2012 (Ex.CW-1/A), photocopy of the cheques (Ex.CW-1/B1 to B8), copy of legal notice dated 16.08.2013 alongwith postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/C and 1/D), tracing report    (Ex.CW-1/E), copy of legal notice dated 27.08.2013 and its postal receipt (Ex.CW-1/F and 1/G) and tracing report (Ex.CW-1/H).   

          In defence, Shri Amit Dua, proprietor of M/s. A.D. Cuisine, have examined himself.  He has also deposed on oath.  He has narrated the facts which have been stated in the written statement. 

6.       We have heard the Ld. Counsel for Mr. Amit Dua, Proprietor of     M/s. A.D. Cuisine (OP) and have perused the material placed on record as counsel for complainant did not appear to argue.

          The only argument which has been advanced on behalf of             Mr. Amit Dua, Proprietor of M/s. A.D. Cuisine (OP) is that complainant was not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act as there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP.  The booking was got done by Mr. Satish Jain.  if the evidence on record is perused, it is noticed that booking was done by Mr. Satish Jain on 26.08.2012 by paying an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-. 

          Further, record shows that Mr. Amit Dua have issued 8 cheques for an amount of Rs. 25,000/- each in the name of Deepak Jain.  Since the booking was got done by Mr. Satish Jain on paying an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/-, it is Mr. Satish Jain who was having privity of contract with  Mr. Amit Dua, Proprietor of M/s. A.D. Cuisine (OP).  Merely by getting the cheques issued in the name of the complainant, does not bring him under the definition of consumer as there has been no privity of contract between the complainant and OP.  Therefore, the arguments advanced on behalf of counsel for OP hold good. 

          When complainant have no privity of contract with OP, his complaint deserves its dismissal and the same is dismissed.  There is no order as to cost. 

          Copy of the order be supplied to the parties as per rules.

          File be consigned to Record Room.

 

 

(DR. P.N. TIWARI)                                              (HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)

       Member                                                                             Member    

 

            (SUKHDEV SINGH)

                   President