CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-VII
DISTRICT: SOUTH-WEST
GOVERNMENT OF NCT OF DELHI
FIRST FLOOR, PANDIT DEEP CHAND SHARMA SAHKAR BHAWAN
SECTOR-20, DWARKA, NEW DELHI-110077
CASE NO.CC/57/20
Date of Institution:- 05.02.2020
Order Reserved on:- 04.07.2024
Date of Decision:- 18.11.2024
IN THE MATTER OF:
Mahender Singh Yadav
S/o Sh. Bhoop Singh Yadav
R/o RZ-883A/8, Street No.9/4,
Sadh Nagar, Palam Colony,
New Delhi - 110045
.….. Complainant
VERSUS
- Nathu’s Sweets
At Shop No.2
Main Market Mathura Road,
Near DPS, Sundar Nagar
New Delhi – 110003
- Head Office Uber Eats
One Horizon Centre
Gurgaon, Haryana - 1220001
.…..Opposite Parties
Suresh Kumar Gupta, President
- The complainant has filed the complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as Act) with the allegations thaton 24.08.2019 his nephew Sarthak, on his behalf, has placed an online order of 12 pieces of samosa with OP-1 through OP-2 vide order no.9407E and paid a sum of Rs.219.50/- in cash.The delivery boy Akash did not reach in time to his housewho was at a distance of 500 meter of his house. He reached there and delivery boy handed over the bag to him against payment. He came to his house and found 10 samosas in place of 12. Sarthak made call on the mobile no.8971222222 but no satisfactory reply was received. There was no complaint number on the website of OP-2. Complaint was made through SMS to OPs and reply with “sorry for inconvenience” was received. The legal notice dated 28.08.2019 was sent to the OPs but in vain. There is deficiency of service on the part of OPs. Hence, this complaint.
- The OPswere duly served but they did not appear and accordingly proceeded ex-parte on 29.07.2022.
- The complainant has filed his own affidavit in ex-parte evidence and corroborated the version of complaint.
- The complainant did not appear to address the arguments and accordingly case was reserved for orders.
- The question that needs consideration is whether complainant is a consumer of not.
- The perusal of the legal notice dated 28.08.2019 shows that on 24.08.2019 complainant has placed an online order of 12 samosas with OP-1 through OP-2.
- The perusal of the complaint shows that Sarthak, nephew of the complainant, has placed the order on behalf of the complainant.
- The perusal of the conversation through SMS with the OP shows that conversation has taken place with Sarthak and OP has send the message of sorry to Sarthak. There is contradiction in the legal notice as well as in the complaint as to who has placed the order with the OPs. The complainant has failed to explain this contradiction.
- The order was placed by Sarthak. The SMSs have exchanged between Sarthak and OP. Sarthak is the consumer. The complainant is not a consumer. The complaint should have been filed by Sarthak instead of complainant.
- The complainant is not a consumer so he has no locus standi to file the complaint and accordingly complaint is dismissed.
- A copy of this order is to be sent to all the parties as per rule.
- File be consigned to record room.
- Announced in the open court on 18.11.2024.
