Delhi

East Delhi

CC/367/2016

R.K PURI - Complainant(s)

Versus

GAURAV SHARMA - Opp.Party(s)

27 May 2019

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. 367/16

 

Shri R.K. Puri

S/o Late Shri Durga Das

R/o 6/110, Top Floor

Geeta Colony, Delhi – 110 031                                   ….Complainant

 

Vs.    

 

Shri Gaurav Sharma

Authorised signatory

Wine and Bear Shop

Shop No. G-8,9,10,11,12-A,12-B

Metroplex Easts Mall

Old Radhu Palance Cinema

Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092                                           …Opponent

 

 

Date of Institution: 21.07.2016

Judgement Reserved on: 27.05.2019

Judgement Passed on: 29.05.2019

 

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 R.K. Puri against Shri Gaurav Sharma, Authorized signatory of Wine and Bear Shop (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 arranged a reception party on 16.08.2015 at Hall Mark Banquet Hall, near Karkardooma Metro Station Delhi and arranged a Bar Stall at the reception hall.  The owner of the said banquet asked the complainant to get the licence for serving liquor to the guests.  The complainant contacted Shri Gaurav Sharma (OP) for getting the licence issued from the authorities concerned who demanded             Rs. 15,000/- for the same.  The complainant paid Rs. 10,000/- alongwith cost of liquor to OP vide invoice no. 1609 Book no. 17 dated 13.08.2015.

            It was stated that liquor could not be served to the guests as OP did not obtain the licence for serving liquor despite receipt of Rs. 15,000/-.

            It was further stated that the invited guests left the party without even taking food and wine and the complainant had to face mental agony, harassment and insult in the society  for the same.  Hence, the complainant has prayed for directions to OP to refund the cost of wine i.e. Rs. 44,280/-; Rs. 15,000/- paid for licence fee; compensation of Rs. 50,000/- and cost of litigation. 

3.         None has appeared on behalf of OP inspite of service.   Hence, they were proceeded ex-parte.

4.         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 also got exhibited copy of invoice (Ex.CW-1/1), copy of legal notice and postal receipts (Ex.CW-1/2 to 1/4).

5.         We have perused the material as well as the documents placed on record.  From the documents Ex.CW-1/1, it is evident that liquor was purchased by the complainant from Shri Gaurav Sharma (OP) by paying an amount of Rs. 44,280/-.  No document has been placed on record to show that Shri Gaurav Sharma (OP) was paid an amount of Rs. 15,000/-, as stated by the complainant in his complaint for the licence.  There is also nothing on record to show that the liquor purchased by the complainant was not served at Hall Mark Banquet Hall. 

In the absence of any evidence on record, the allegations contained in the complaint cannot be said to be substantiated.  Thus, the complainant have failed to prove any deficiency on the part of OP.  Hence, this 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.

 

 

 

(HARPREET KAUR CHARYA)                                          (SUKHDEV SINGH)

              Member                                                                          President