DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION SAS NAGAR (MOHALI)

                                    Consumer Complaint No.1444 of 2020

                                                Date of institution:  13.08.2020

                                                  Date of Decision: 02.12.2020

Kulwinder Singh son of Late Charanjit Singh, resident of House No.170, Second Floor, Saini Vihar, Phase-5, Baltana, District Mohali.

…….Complainant

Versus

1.     Firstcry (A First Cry- Mahindra Venture), Rajashree Business Park, Plot No.114, Third Floor, Survey No.338, Near Sohrabh Hall, Tadiwala Road, Pune through its Manager/Director/Incharge.

        And another.

                                                      ……..Opposite Parties

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                Shri Inderjit, Member

Present:    None for the complainant.

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

Shri Inderjit, Member

Order

               The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as ‘OPs’ for short).  Neither the complainant nor the Advocate is present in this case. It is pertinent to mention here that such types of cases are filed in bulk to extract money from the OPs. It is also on record that as and when summons are issued to the OPs and the OPs are served, the matter is compromised outside the Commission and a huge amount is being taken by the CC in lieu of compromise. It is also brought to our notice that some people including some Advocates are doing business out of it. They purchase online small small items in bulk and file cases like this in various Benches in Tricity and even in adjoining districts. This practice is going on for the last many years, which has put huge financial burden on this Commission since this Commission has to spend a huge amount  of the money to purchase postal stamps which are wasted on these types of cases. Moreover, this Commission is not able to concentrate on other serious cases because of the pendency of these types of cases which are thousands in numbers. In this case the complainant has sought refund of a very small amount of GST which is allegedly charged by the OPs. It is pertinent to mention here that in these types of cases even no court fee is required. Despite our various orders the complainants are not even filing the proper addresses. It is important to mention here that the CC, in this case, if she was not satisfied with the value of the product, had an option to return the product online or to get the order cancelled but she had not chosen to do so, which clearly shows that the complaint has been filed for taking undue advantage by misusing the process of law.  In this regard, we are equipped with the decision of Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in case titled as Bajee Govindan Vs. P. Santhosh Kumar decided on 18.04.2019. It appears that the CC, who has filed the complaint, is trying to make a business out of process of law.

2.             Therefore, the complaint is not to be admitted since it appears to be malafide. Accordingly the complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs. The complainant is further directed to refrain from filing such type of frivolous complaints failing which the matter will be reported to the appropriate authorities. Free certified copies of this order be  sent to the complainant, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

Announced

December 02, 2020

                                                                (Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

                                                                President

(Inderjit)

Member