DIST. CONSUMER  DISPUTES  REDRESSAL  FORUM

NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.

  M.A. 218/2018

C. C. NO- 508/2017

Date of Filing:                                                                                                Date of Disposal:

30.07.2018                                                                                                     31.07.2018

Complainant :-                       Sri Devinder Mittal

                                                S/o. Sri Brahm Prakash,

                                                10, W/FF, 7 Tanks Estate, Near Cassipore Club,

                                                P.O. Ghughudanga, P.S. Sinthi,

Dist- North 24 Parganas.

=Vs=

Opposite Parties:-                  Chief Executive Officer,

                                                Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd,

                                                Vaishnavi Summit No. 6/B, Bangalore-560034.

P R E S E N T  :-        Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………..…..President.

  :-       Smt. SilpiMajumder  ………………………Member.

ORDER No-04

This order is arising out of the MA being no-218/2018 filed by the Complainant in the CC no-508/2017 praying for amendment in the petition of complaint.

In the application it is stated by the Complainant that the petition of complaint was filed by the Complainant u/S 17(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 instead of u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 due to inadvertence. By filing this application the Complainant has sought for amendment of the same. According to the Complainant if this prayer is not allowed by this Ld. Forum, then he will be seriously prejudiced and prayer is made by the Complainant for allowing the application.

Though the OP has received the copy of the said application, but no objection is raised either orally or by filing written objection. It is seen by us that admittedly the complaint is filed under the Section of the Consumer Protection Act, which is the Section for filing an appeal, not the complaint. For filing the complaint there is specific Section in the said Act i.e. Section 12. But due to inadvertence this complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 17(1) of the C.P. Act in lieu of the Section 12 of the said Act. According to us such mistake is a bonafide one and there is no mal-intention of the Complainant for filing under the wrong section. As there is no intentional laches on the part of the Complainant, hence in our opinion that the prayer as sought for by the Complainant is justified to remove the defect. Moreover the abovementioned amendment will not change the nature and character of the complaint. Therefore in our considered view the prayer of the Complainant should be allowed.

Hence it is ordered that the MA being no-218/2018 is hereby allowed on contest without any cost. Fix ………………….for filing amended complaint by the Complainant showing the amendment as sought for and allowed.

Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.

Member                                                                                                                       President

Dictated & Corrected by