Delhi

West Delhi

CC/16/772

VIPIN DATTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S BIKANERWALA - Opp.Party(s)

09 Feb 2024

ORDER

BEFORE THE CONSUMER DIPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III (WEST)

C-150-151, COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAKPURI,

NEW DELHI-110058

 

CC/772/16

IN THE MATTERS OF:-

 

Vipin Datta      & Anr.                                                                                        ……COMPLAINANTS

 

VERSUS

 

Bikanerwala & Ors                                                                                      ……OPPOSITE PARTIES  

 

                                                                 

Coram:           

1. SONICA MEHROTRA (PRESIDENT)
2. RICHA JINDAL (MEMBER)
3. ANIL KOUSHAL (MEMBER)

 

Order Passed By: Ms. Richa Jindal (Member)

Present: None                                                                JUDGEMENT PASSED ON- 09/02/2024                    

 

 

                                                RESERVED ON      DATE: 06/02/2024

ORDER

 

1. It has been seen that no appearance has been entered by the complainant after 08.12.2022. Today is 4^th consecutive date on which Complainant is not present. It seems that Complainant is not interested in contesting his matter. Commission is not inclined to accommodate complainant any further as he has failed to press his own case. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed in default for willful non-appearance, non-complaince in light of the detailed observation. Even otherwise the present complaint alleges unfair trade practice on the part of OP’s selling imperious goods with the intention to extort money from their respective customersBut the complainant has failed to place respective bill on record. Admittedly the goods in question are “ladoos”, which is a perishable item. According to his own averment in the complaint, he purchased the same in Delhi and for his relative in Bangalore. In the complaint as well as evidence, the complainant himself admitted that he does not possess any invoice or cash memo in respect of the goods having being allegedly purchased from OP and as such we observe that no case is therefore made out.
2. We are guided by the judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC on similar issue in the case of Vijay Singh v/s Mohan Meakin limited (III) (2016) CPJ 147 (NC) in which the Hon’ble NCDRC dismissed the complaint pertaining to an allegation of adulterated beer in the absence of any cash memo regarding the purchase of the same, upholding SCDRC judgement and dismissing the judgement of District Consumer Forum which had allowed the complaint.
3. In the light of the judgement discussed above & the legal proposition, we hold  that the present complaint is not maintainable against OPs for unfair trade practice in the absence of purchase proof /cash memo to prima facie implicate allegation against the OPs. Therefore, the issue of adulteration is far-fetched and need not be dealt with. We, therefore dismiss the present complaint.
4. It also appears an attempt to misuse the jurisdiction of this Commission only with a view to save on the court fee payable in a suit before the civil court. Having considered the matter from different angles and having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the complainants, we are of the view that these consumer complaints are not maintainable before this Commission. However, the complainants shall be free to work out their remedy in accordance with the law before the appropriate court/tribunal. With these observations, consumer complaints are dismissed.
5. As far as, compensation claimed by the complainant to the tune of Rs. 3,24,570/-, we are guided by the judgement of Hon’ble NCDRC on a similar issue in the case Synco Industries vs State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur 2002 (3) CPR 105 (SC) held as under Where the complainant has raised consumer dispute against Government bodies or insurance companies and sought damages in the sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- (four lakh) for covering the cost of travel and other expenses incurred by the complainant, the Supreme Court upholding the order of the National Commission held that it was not a fit case to be tried under the consumer protection act. Supreme Court however gave liberty to the complainant to approach the civil court.

The Supreme Court further held that “The complainant had not approached the civil court obviously because before the consumer forum any figure in damages could be claimed without paying court fee. The Supreme court, therefore, held that the filing of the complaint in the present case amounted to an abuse of process of Consumer Forum.”

In Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Union Bank of India I (2001) CPJ 1 (NC), this Commission referred to another problem of clogging of the wheels of justice in Consumer Courts was also considered and in substance observed why moneybags should abandon the remedy by the Civil Court and seek justice from the Consumer Courts by passing the Civil Courts, all together and that too without paying the Court-fee.

6. In the light of the judgment discussed above & the legal proposition, we hold that the present complaint is also not maintainable against OP for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice against the OPs. Since the complainant has already received the cost of ticket i.e the claim amount only after a lapse of one day much before the filing of the complaint and this fact was very well in the knowledge of the complainant also.

 

7. We, therefore dismiss the present complaint in limine for want of without any cause of action.

 

8. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost after receiving the application for the certified copy as per the direction received from the Hon’ble State Commission.

 

9. File be consigned to the record room after announced on 09/02/2024.

 

 

(Richa Jindal)         Member

(Anil Kumar Koushal)               Member

(Sonica Mehrotra)                         President