Delhi

Central Delhi

CC/79/2016

JAGNESH BANSAL - Complainant(s)

Versus

N.I.A. - Opp.Party(s)

07 Dec 2016

ORDER

Heading1
Heading2
 
Complaint Case No. CC/79/2016
 
1. JAGNESH BANSAL
RZ-69, STREET -2, VAISHALI, PALAM DABRI ROAD, DELHI-45.
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. N.I.A.
902-905, HEM KUNT TOWER, 6, RAJENDER PLACE, NEW DELHI-08.
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. MOHD. ANWAR ALAM PRESIDENT
 HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS MEMBER
 HON'BLE MRS. MRS. MANJU BALA SHARMA MEMBER
 
For the Complainant:
For the Opp. Party:
Dated : 07 Dec 2016
Final Order / Judgement

                                 ORDER                                    Dated:  16.12.2016

Mohd. Anwar Alam, President

 

  1. On 25.02.2016, complainant filed order sheets of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum –VII New Delhi  as well as the certified copies of the documents issued by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum –VII New Delhi.  On 09.03.2016 one Hon’ble Member of this forum has issued Notice to the OPs.  OPs filed objections and stated that complaint has not been filed before this forum and substance of complaint is not maintainable.  It is further stated that complainant concealed all the material facts.
  2. Copies of these objections supplied to the complainant but he failed to file any response on these objections on 09.09.2016 and 07.12.2016 , therefore, heard both the parties and perused file.
  3. Under the provision of section 2 (1) (c) of the  Consumer Protection Act 1986  ,"complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complain­ant that— 

(i)      an unfair trade practice or a restrictive trade practice has been adopted by any trader or service provider;

(ii)     the goods bought by him or agreed to be bought by him; suffer from one or more defects;

(iii)    the services hired or availed of or agreed to be hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in any respect;

(iv)    a trader or service provider, as the case may be,  has charged for the goods or for the service mentioned in the com­plaint a price in excess of the price –

(a)    fixed by or under any law for the time being in force

(b)    displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods ;

(c)    displayed on the price list exhibited by him by or under any law for the

                   time being in force;

(d)   agreed between the parties.

  1.  Therefore, in our considered opinion, the certified copies filed by the complainant cannot be taken as allegations in writing made by the complainant. Hence, the objects filed by the OPs are allowed and certified copies filed by the complainant is not a complaint under the provision of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.  Accordingly the case is dismissed.
  2.  Copy of the order made available to the parties free of cost as per law.

      File  be consigned to record room.

 

Announced on………

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. MOHD. ANWAR ALAM]
PRESIDENT
 
[HON'BLE MR. VIKRAM KUMAR DABAS]
MEMBER
 
[HON'BLE MRS. MRS. MANJU BALA SHARMA]
MEMBER

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.