Delhi

North West

CC/47/2023

MANBIR SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

ONE MOBIKWIK SYSTEMS LIMITED - Opp.Party(s)

KULDEEP YADAV

19 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NORTH-WEST GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
 
Complaint Case No. CC/47/2023
( Date of Filing : 22 Jan 2023 )
 
1. MANBIR SINGH
1974 FF RANI BAGH DELHI
NORTH WEST
DELHI
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. ONE MOBIKWIK SYSTEMS LIMITED
UNIT NO. 102, 1ST FLOOR, BLOCK-B, PEGASUS ONE, GOLF COURSE ROAD, SECTOR-53,
GURUGRAM
HARYANA
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 
PRESENT:
 
Dated : 19 Apr 2023
Final Order / Judgement

ORDER

 

MS. NIPUR CHANDNA, MEMBER

  1. By this order we will be deciding the admissibility of the Consumer Complaint under section 36(2) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 filed by the complainant before this Commission.
  2. Present complainant has been filed by complainant alleging deficiency in services against OP for not giving him cash back of Rs. 400/- and seeking apology from OP with cost and compensation. 
  3. The case of the complainant is that on 10.11.2022 complainant received an Email from OP offering him an amount of Rs. 400/- as cash back if complainant make three transactions via their electronic mobile online application software wallet named as ‘Mobikwik’. 
  4. The complainant stated that on assurance made by OP, he did four transactions first a credit card bill payment of Rs. 5,000/- vide order ID MBK856335875 second electricity bill of Rs. 330/- vide order ID MK01856896137 third landline bill of Rs. 588.82 vide order ID MK01856898751 and fourth DTH bill of Rs. 150 vide order ID TDH856900236 their electronic wallet mobile application named as ‘Mobikwik’.
  5. The Complainant has alleged that  despite making four transaction complainant didn’t receive cash back of Rs. 400 as promised. Complainant also wrote to OP requesting to give cashback of Rs. 400/- but all in vain.  
  6. Hence complainant is before us praying for directions to OPs to apologize to him for their irresponsible conduct and award cost and compensation to him against OP.
  7. We have gone through the contentions made by complainant in his complaint and heard the complainant on the point of admissibility of complaint. A short question arises before us at the stage of admission of the present complaint whether Complainant is a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
  8. On perusal of the complaint and documents annexed to it is apparent that complainant is alleging deficiency in services against OP for not giving him cash back of Rs. 400/- as promised despite having done four transactions. 
  9. In this regard, we find it appropriate to quote the definition of 'consumer' as defined under section 2 (7) of the C.P. Act, 2019 which runs as below:-

(7) "consumer" means any person who— (i) 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

(ii) hires or avails of any service 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 beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose.

 

  1.  On perusal of the record it is evident the complainant has not paid any consideration to the OP for using their services of e wallet.  During the course of argument on admission hearing a specific query was made to complainant regarding consideration paid by him to OP on which he didn’t gave any satisfactory answer to this Commission.  
  2. In view of above observations, discussion and applying principles of law in the present facts and circumstances of the case, since the complainant has not paid any amount to OP on account of consideration as such he doesn’t fall within the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined in Consumer Protection Act, 2019 and therefore present complaint is rejected.

Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost. The orders be uploaded on www.confonet.nic.in.File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open Commission on this 11th April, 2023.

 

 

 

 

 

(SANJAY KUMAR )                 (NIPUR CHANDNA)                 (RAJESH)

PRESIDENT                              MEMBER                                 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.