Delhi

North East

CC/407/2024

MRS. PARUL GUPTA - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/S VARDAAN ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

28 Aug 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. 407/24

In the matter of:

	Smt. Parul Gupta, W/o Sh. Deepak Kumar, A-76/A-3, Dilshad Colony, East Delhi, Delhi 110095	Complainant
	Versus
1.         2.	Mr. Vardaan Enterprises Khasra No. 188, Sibli Industrial Area, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh 201204   Chaurasiya Pan Bhandar, D, Pocket (Decentcar) In front Gate No. 2, Dilshad Garden, Delhi 110095	Opposite Parties

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Adarsh Nain, Member

 

ORDER

 Ms. Adarsh Nain, Member

1. The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against Opposite Party No. 1 i.e.  Mr. Vardaan Enterprises and Opposite Party No. 2 i.e. Chaurasiya Pan Bhandar.
2. As per the complaint filed by the Complainant, on 10.07.2024 she purchased a water bottle from Opposite Party No. 2 and she made a payment through paytm. Complainant stated that she noticed a kind of harmful substance in the water bottle and informed to Opposite Party No. 2 but Opposite Party No. 2 said that it cannot do anything about this. On the contrary, the Complainant was told by Opposite Party No. 2 that if there was any harmful substance then Complainant would contact with company owner. Complainant stated that she made a complaint regarding this to Signature Company and Opposite Party      No. 2. Complainant stated that the said act and action are absolutely illegal, unlawful and without due process of law and it amounts to deficiency in service. Complainant has prayed for Rs. 4,50,000/- as compensation and an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as litigation expenses.
3. The present complaint is on admission stage. Arguments heard on admission and perused the file.
4. On careful scrutiny of the complaint and the annexures thereto, we find that Complainant has only find printed copies of photo of water bottle and payment of Rs. 20 made to Opposite Party No. 2 through paytm application. Perusal of the documents filed by the Complainant does not prove the allegations of the Complainant that the water bottle was purchased from Opposite Party No. 2 and the said bottle contained some harmful substance. Moreover, the Complainant has not specified anywhere the alleged harmful substance found in the bottle. The Complainant has stated that she made a complaint regarding this to Opposite Party No. 1 i.e. Signature Company and Opposite Party No. 2 while she has not filed any documents in support of her contention.
5. During the course of arguments also, the Ld. Counsel for Complainant could also not produce or show any proof in support of her claim which could show the deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties.
6. The Complainant has alleged deficiency on the part of Opposite Parties on account of having sold water bottle containing harmful substance and for not resolving her issues despite complaints. Complainant stated to have made complaint regarding this to Signature Company and Opposite Party No. 2. However, the Complainant has not been able to produce any cogent evidence in support of her case, showing any deficiency in services towards the Complainant on the part of Opposite Parties. 
7. In view of above, we find the present complaint devoid of any merit to warrant its admission.
8. Thus, the present complaint is dismissed.
9. Order announced on 28.08.2024.

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

File be consigned to Record Room.

 

(Adarsh Nain)     Member

(Surinder Kumar Sharma) President