Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/653/2019

Mandeep Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Dominos C/o Jubilant Foodworks Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Neha Adv. & Amandeep Singh Adv.

05 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

Consumer Complaint No.	:	653/2019
Date of Institution	:	19.07.2019
Date of Decision	:	05.02.2021

 

                                       

                                               

Mandeep Singh s/o Sucha Singh r/o H.No.3021, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh

                                ...  Complainant.

Versus

 

Dominos c/o Jubilant Foodworks Ltd., SCO-3, Sector 8-B, Chandigarh through Proprietor/Manager/Authorized Signatory.

…. Opposite Party.

BEFORE:

 

SHRI RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

SMT.PRITI MALHOTRA, MEMBER

SHRI B.M.SHARMA, MEMBER

 

 

Argued by:-

None for the complainant

Sh.Saurabh Gulia, Adv. for the OP.

 

PER RAJAN DEWAN, PRESIDENT

1.           The facts of the case as alleged by the complainant are that on 22.05.2019, he bought a pizza and went at the billing counter for payment and he was charged Rs.11.42P for a carry bag in order to carry article  (Annexure C-1).  He raised the question and told the cashier that it is illegal to charge for carry bag/paper bag/any other bag but the cashier of the OP told that it is the company policy and they will have to charge for the same.  It has further been averred that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service as also indulged into unfair trade practice by charging for the carry bag. Hence, the present consumer complaint.
2.         In its written statement, the OP has pleaded that the bill in question was issued in favour of Mr.Amar and not in favour of the complainant and as such he has got no locus standi to file the present complaint and he has failed to establish the fact as to in what manner he has been adversely affected in the light of the contents of the complaint.   It has further been pleaded that it was Mr.Amar himself who while purchasing the food items, had asked for a carry bag. It has further been pleaded that the OP serves its products in container itself and there is no need to provide separate carry  bag (s). The OP provides the carry bag(s) but it is the choice of the consumer to buy the same or not.  The remaining allegations have denied being false.  Pleading that there is no deficiency in service on its part, a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has been made.
3.         We have heard the learned Counsel for the OP and gone through the documents on record.
4.         The first and foremost question to be determined in this case is as to whether the complainant is a consumer qua the OP as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act or not. The answer to this question is in negative.
5.         A bare perusal of the invoice attached with the complaint shows that the same was issued in the name of one Mr.Amar  and not in the name of the complainant. Since the complainant has not paid any consideration or availed services of the OP, therefore, he is not a consumer qua the OP as defined under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and he has got no locus standi to file the present complaint against the OP.
6.         In view of the above discussion, the present complaint deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.
7.         Certified copy of this order be communicated to the parties, free of charge. After compliance file be consigned to record room.

Announced 05.02.2021	Sd/-
	(RAJAN DEWAN) PRESIDENT
	Sd/-
	(PRITI MALHOTRA) MEMBER
	Sd/-
	(B.M.SHARMA) MEMBER

 

 

cmg