DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,
SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092
BHAWNA GARG V/S MR. BROWN BAKERY
Case No :- 60/2020
Date : 19.02.2024
Present : Ld. Counsel for the Complainant
Arguments heard further. Counsel for the complainant submits that he has filed amended memo of parties on last date of hearing and therefore notice be issued to the OPs. The Commission has perused the record. The amended memo of parties now has three OPs i.e. M/s Brown Bakery and Food Products Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Lucknow, M/s Brown Bakery and Food Products Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Rajdhani Enclave and Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Rajdhani Enclave, Vikas Marg. Ld. counsel for the complainant submitted that he is now dropping OP1 and OP2 and notice be issued to OP3 only. Heard during arguments and clarification particularly w.r.t. original complaint where only two OPs were made party, the counsel for complainant reiterated that he is pressing this complaint against all the three OPs. File perused.
Initially, the complaint was filed by the complainant on 28.02.2020 and first date of hearing was given as 11.03.2020 and it was against two OPs i.e. OP1 namely M/s Brown Bakery having its office at Plot No.10 Rajdhani Enclave and OP2 M/s Brown Bakery and Food Products Pvt. Ltd. having its office at Lucknow. This complaint was admitted against OP1 and OP2, but when the notice was served, one Sh. Sanjeev Nirwani Advocate appeared for the intervener, claiming itself to be the counsel for Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd., and filed an application that complainant has filed a complaint against non-existing parties by deliberately misleading the Commission and by filing an altered bill dated 05.05.2019, whereas the actual party is Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd. And copy of the same was given to the complainant, who did not file any specific reply, rather reiterated that complainant has a cause of action against the existing parties as he has been arrayed and he has a case of deficiency in services by OP2 and therefore M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd. has nothing to do with the complaint. Vide order dated 23.02.2022 the said application of the intervener was dismissed (as M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd. was not a party at that time) and complainant was directed to clarify the status of both the OPs. The complainant had filed amended memo of parties thereby removing M/s Brown Bakery as OP1 and keeping only OP2 having two addresses one at Rajdhani Enclave and another at Lucknow. This amended memo of parties was taken on record in which he has mentioned three OPs rather only two Ops (as OP1 and OP2 are same partner at different addresses) i.e. M/s Brown Bakery and Food Products Pvt. Ltd as OP1 having its address of Lucknow, the same company having its address at Preet Vihar Rajdhani Enclave and third M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd and it is prayed that notice be issued to all the three parties.
The Commission has heard the arguments at length.
Right from the date of filing the complaint upto the date when Sh. Sanjeev Nirwani appeared for M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd, the complainant has been arguing on the lines that he has nothing to do with M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd and despite giving information by the counsel for intervener M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd the complainant did not amend the complaint rather continued the proceedings against OP i.e. M/s Brown Bakery and Food Products Pvt. Ltd having its address at Lucknow and Rajdhani Enclave and now he is asking that notice be issued to M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd that too without filing any application for impleading M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd, without amending the complaint to show as to what cause of action has been disclosed against M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd and further without explaining as to how the complaint w.r.t. the facts which has occurred on 05.05.2019 be admitted against M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd in the year 2024.
Not only this, it is a matter of record that the said intervener M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd, now who is sought to be made a party by complainant has specifically mentioned on its application dated 25.07.2021 that complainant had deliberately trying to mislead the Commission by filing an altered bill dated 05.05.2019 and it (M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd) filed the exact bill dated 05.05.2019 issued by M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd . It is also observed that the bill which was filed by the complainant in original complaint it no where mentioned that the bill which they have placed on record was issued by M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd. The Commission is not referring any opinion as to whether the complainant has forged this bill or not at this stage as there is no conclusive evidence on the record but definitely there appears to be some mismatch in the bill filed by complainant and in the bill filed by M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd. and in absence of any application seeking permission to add M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd as a party and further in absence of any application seeking amendment of the original complaint and further in absence of any explanation as to how the complaint against M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd is maintainable after four years of its filing, the Commission is of the opinion that there is no sufficient reason to issue notice as far as M/s Nalanda Bakers Pvt. Ltd is concerned merely on the filing of Memo of Parties. This said request of the complainant is therefore dismissed. As far as M/s Brown Bakery and Food Products having its office at Lucknow and M/s Brown Bakery and Food Products having its office at Rajdhani Enclave is concerned the Commission has already ordered that the complainant would furnish fresh details w.r.t. to the constitution of OP1 and OP2. As per the bill, there appear to mis-match on the bill and therefore no fresh notice can be issued to these OPs. In fact, there is no reason to peruse the file further once there is no surviving cause of action against OP1 and OP2. Therefore, OP1 and OP2 are not service provider to the complainant and further name of OP3 already been ordered to be not taken on record.
In nutshell now there is no OP against whom any cause of action survives. Complaint of the complainant is therefore rejected.
File be consigned to Record Room.
