Delhi

North East

CC/154/2023

Komal (Minor) - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Naaptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Oct 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

Complaint Case No. 154/23

 

 

In the matter of:

 

	Ms. Kombal @ komal (Minor aged 15 years). Through her father Balbir, R/o H.No. 5/37 A, Patel Gali, Area Vishwas Nagar, Near Puneet Public School, New Delhi 110032	Complainant
	Versus
1.           2.	M/s Naptol Online Shopping Pvt. Ltd. At Number 11, Conopus, Kabra Galaxy Star I, CHS, Brahmand, Azad Nagar, Thane,West 400607   Surya Trading Co. PKT J Property No. 273 Sector 1, Bawana Industrial Area, Bawana Delhi, North West, Delhi 110039	Opposite Parties

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:     JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:     DATE OF ORDER:

06.06.23 19.07.24 07.10.24

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

 

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer protection Act, 2019.

 

Case of the Complainant

1. The facts of the case as revealed from the record are that one minor girl namely Kombal alias komal had ordered 8 Psc steel Push & Lock Bowl set from Opposite Party No.1. On 14.04.23 Complainant received the order delivered by Opposite Party No.2 through E-Kart, and after opening the package there was only 4 Psc of Steel Push & Lock Bowl set instead of 8 Psc of Steel Push & Lock Bowl set and on the bill it was mentioned 8 Psc of Steel Push & Lock Bowl set. Thereafter Complainant contacted Opposite Party No.1 and narrated the incident and executive of Opposite Party No.1 assured Complainant that they will send the remaining 4 pieces in next 24 hours and complaint 60855569 vide order ID 105858975 has been registered. On 16.04.23 Complainant again contacted Opposite Party No.1 and inquired about status of remaining 4 Psc of Steel Push & Lock Bowl set and Opposite Party No.1 replied that the product has been out of warranty and now they will not send remaining 4 items and refused to return the product as well as refused to refund the amount of Complainant. The Complainant has also sent legal notice to Opposite Parties dated 19.04.23 through speed post and the same was duly served to the Opposite Parties. After few days Complainant received reply from Opposite Party No.1 in which Opposite Party No.1 was not ready to compensate amount to the Complainant.  The Complainant had approached Opposite Parties several times but Opposite Parties did not pay any heed to the request of Complainant. Hence, this shows deficiency in service on behalf of Opposite Parties. The Complainant has prayed for Rs. 500/- and Rs. 55,000/- for mental harassment. The Complainant has also prayed for Rs. 11,000/- towards litigation expenses. The Complainant is minor and the complaint has been filed by her father.
2. None has appeared on behalf of Opposite Parties to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Parties were proceeded against Ex-parte vide order dated 29.08.23.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of her case filed affidavit of Sh. Balveer, Father of Complainant wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments and Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and the written arguments filed by the Complainant. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by affidavit of her father in evidence. The Opposite Parties did not appear and did not file any written statement.
5.  We have heard the Counsel for the Complainant and have perused the file and the written argument filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that she had ordered 8 Psc steel Push & Lock Bowl Set and when the delivery was received it was found that there was only 4 Psc steel Push & Lock Bowl Set instead of 8 Psc steel Push & Lock Bowl Set.
6. The first question is that whether the Complainant is a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Section 02 (07) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 reads as under:

“Consumer means any person who-

1. buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or”

 

7. The perusal of the definition of the consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 2019 shows that “consideration” is an essential part. In the present case, the Complainant has not mentioned in the complaint that any consideration was paid to the Opposite Parties for purchasing the goods nor in the affidavit filed in the evidence it is mentioned that any consideration was paid by the Complainant for purchasing the goods.
8. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the Complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 07.10.24.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)           Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President