DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

  C.C. NO. 204/2023

Date of Institution: 06.05.2023

Order Reserved on: 12.12.2023

Order Passed on: 14.12.2023

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Order By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

ORDER

Present :     Shri Trivedi Praful, Advocate for complainant.

          Arguments have already been heard. Matter is at the stage of admission. Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are that he visited the office of OP in December, 2021 and booked two Halls for solemnizing the marriage which was to be solemnized on 19.01.2022 of his son and after discussion OP demanded a sum of Rs.200000/- for the booking of two different function halls and the complainant paid Rs.67000/- as advance booking to OP vide his two different receipts and confirmed the booking for two different halls. However, the complainant was informed over phone by OP that due to Covid the booking has been cancelled and then the complainant made a request to refund the amount of Rs.67000/- which were not paid and ultimately OP refused to pay the amount and thereafter various letters and e-mails were exchanged and even letter was written to the office of Ld. DM and SDM concerned but OP did not return the amount and ultimately he has filed the present complaint thereby demanding the money back alleging deficiency on the part of OP, alongwith compensation of Rs.100000/- and litigation charges of Rs.50000/- with interest.

The Commission has heard the arguments and enquired the complainant particularly as to whether there is any documents. which may prove that complainant has made the payment to OP, but no documents signed by the OP has been placed on record rather receipts of two estimates were filed which definitely neither bears name nor the stamps of the OP nor of any of authorized person.

The Commission has specifically granted the time to the OP vide order dated 03.08.2023 for filing some documents with respect to payments made by the complainant to the OP to which the complainant has replied orally that whatever documents were in possession of complainant has been filed and he has no other documents. The law is well settled that any deficiency for which a complaint case can be filed before the Consumer Commission by a person, he has to qualify the test of being a consumer as defined under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act as. 

As per Section 2(7) of the CPA-2019, which reads as under:

"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.........

7) (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.    

Now coming to the facts of the present case, it is clear that complainant has not been able to place any documents on record which may show that complainant has paid any consideration to the OP or has agreed to take service of the OP or the OP has agreed to provide service to the complainant for consideration. The commission is also of the opinion that mere writing letters either to the office of the SHO or to the office of the DM would not make the complainant a consumer within the definition of CP Act. The complaint of the complainant is therefore rejected.

File be consigned to Record Room.