CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION – X
GOVERNMENT OF N.C.T. OF DELHI
Udyog Sadan, C – 22 & 23, Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel)
New Delhi – 110016
Case No.185/2018
SUKHARANJAN MISTRY
H.NO. 117, ASOLA HOUSING COMPLEX,
(DHAKWALI), PS FATEHPUR BERI,
NEW DELHI-110074…..COMPLAINANT
Vs.
- M/s CROSSROADS INDIA ASSISTANCE Pvt. Ltd.
- Mr. RINKU- FIELD EXECUTIVE/STAFF OF M/s CROSSROADS
- LEKHRAJ – ACCOUNTS STAFF OF M/s. CROSSROADS
ALL AT X-1 OKHLA IND. AREA, PHASE-II,
NEW DELHI-110020 ..….RESPONDENT
Date of Institution-27/08/2018.
Date of Order-04/04/2022.
O R D E R
MONIKA SRIVASTAVA– President
The complainant has filed the present up complaint seeking refund of Rs. 2000 along with interest at 12%, damages/compensation to the tune of Rs.1,00,000 and Rs.25,000 towards litigation expenses.
It is the case of the complainant that he purchased a road service of the OP i.e M/s Crossroads India Assistance Pvt. Ltd. and made a payment of Rs. 2000/- via Paytm to an account staff of the OP. The receipt is annexed along with the complaint as Ex. CW 1/1 and the tax invoice is annexed as Ex. CW 1/2. It is stated by the complainant that this road service was for a period of 4 years. It was also promised that the road service would be provided to him within 30 minutes as soon as the payment would be made.
It is further stated that on 26.06.2018 the complainant called someone from the OP many times and requested him to provide road service but all in vain. It is further stated that the said person stated that they do not repair punctures of motorcycles. The conversation recorded in this regard is copied in a CD is Ex. CW 1/3 and transcription of the same is Ex. CW 1/4. It is the case of the complainant that he had to himself take his motorcycle to the nearby shop for having it repaired. The complainant has also filed a certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act and is Ex. CW 1/9. Feeling cheated, the complainant wrote number of mails to the OP and requested for return of Rs. 2000 but did not receive any response from them.
The OP was proceeded ex parte on 03.10.2018. Complainant has filed his evidence by way of affidavit and has also filed his written arguments. The receipt of the money shows the name of one Mr Rishabh Mistry and the plan is also activated in his name as is evident from the exhibits filed along with the complaint.
All the documents filed by the complainant do not reflect the name of the complainant as the purchaser of road services of the OP. It has also not been made clear from any of the documents nor any averment is made in this regard in the complaint as to the relationship of the complainant with Mr Rishabh Mistry. It is also not the case of the complainant that although one Mr Rishabh Mistry was the purchaser of the services of the OP and that the complainant was the beneficiary. Therefore this Commission deems it fit to reject the claim of the complainant holding that the complainant has not been able to establish any consumer relationship with the OP.
The complaint is dismissed without order as to costs. File be consigned to the record room after providing copy of the order to the party.
(Dr. RAJENDER DHAR) (RASHMI BANSAL) (MONIKA SRIVASTAVA)
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
