DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

Consumer Complaint No.2093 of 2019

                                                Date of institution:  18.10.2019                                              Date of decision   :  15.11.2021

Indervir Singh son of Late Shri Ishar Singh, resident of K.No.513, Phase-6, Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

Jubilient Foods Pvt. Ltd., Domino’s Pizza, SCO 4, Phase-5, Mohali through its Incharge/Managing Director/Manager.

                                                      ……..Opposite Party  

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Ms. Gagandeep Gosal,  Member

Present:    Shri Kulwinder Singh, counsel for the complainant.

                Shri Saurav Gulia, counsel for the OP.

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

Order

               The present order of ours, will dispose of a complaint under Consumer Protection Act, filed by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP’ for short), on the ground that the CC went to the shop of the OP and found that the OP has charged Rs.13.33 for the “carry bag” in addition to the price of the purchased goods. The CC raised the objection and told the cashier that it is illegal to charge for the carry bag, but he was not given any satisfactory reply. It is alleged that charging for the carry bag in addition to the purchased goods/articles, is deficiency in service and malpractice on the part of the OP.

           Thus,  the CC has sought the refund of Rs.13.33 towards price of the carry bag charged in addition to the purchase of goods. The CC has further demanded Rs.50,000/- as compensation  and  Rs. 33,000/- as litigation costs and also Rs. 2,00,000/-   in Legal Consumer Aid fund

2.          In reply, a number of preliminary objections are raised but the main objection of the OP is that the CC has got no “locus standi” to file the present complaint. It is alleged in the reply, that the invoice attached with the complaint shows that it was issued in the name of one Sonu” and not in the name of the complainant and as such the complaint is not maintainable.

3.             The CC in support of his complaint submitted his affidavit Ex.CW-1/1 and tax Invoice Ex.C-1. On the other hand the OP has submitted affidavit of Sandeep, its authorized signatory alongwith documents.

       4.             We have heard the counsel for the parties and have perused the record

5.              From the perusal of the invoice attached with the complaint, it shows that the invoice is showing the name of one “Sonu”. The bare perusal of the invoice clearly shows that the complainant has not paid any consideration or availed the services of the OP, since the bill in question is in the name of Sonu Kumar and not in the name of the complainant. Therefore, we are of the view, that the complainant has no locus standi to file the present complaint.

6.            In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the present complaint. However, no order is made as to cost. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties.   File be indexed and consigned to record room.

Announced

November 15, 2021

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

                                                       I agree.

(Ms. Gagandeep Gosal)

Member