Delhi

West Delhi

CC/23/82

Manish Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Phone Pe Business - Opp.Party(s)

21 Apr 2023

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-III: WEST, C-BLOCK, COMMUNITY CENTRE, PANKHA ROAD, JANAK PURI NEW DELHI-110058

Complaint Case No.82/2023

In the matter of

Manish Kumar

S/o Shri Ganga Vishnu,

R/o C-89, Jai Vihar Phase-3,

Gall No.10/1, Baprola Village,

Najafgarh South West,

New Delhi-110043

 

Also at

Cyber Hub & Photo Studio

B-778, JJ Colony, Bakkarwala,

West Delhi-110041                                                                                                                 ....COMPLAINANT

VERSUS

Phonepe Business

Regd. Office at A-25,

Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area,

New Delhi-110044

 

Also at:

Unit No.001, Ground Floor,

Boston House, Suren Road,

Off. Andheri-Kurla road,

Andheri(East), Mumbai-400093                                                                                    ……OPPOSITE PARTY

 

CORAM

Ms. Sonica Mehrotra, President

Ms.Richa Jindal, Member

Mr. Anil Kumar Koushal, Member

 

Dated: 21.04.2023

Present: Complainant in person.

1. The Complainant states that he is running a business/shop of cyber hub and photo studio in which he is doing work of photography, filling of various types of forms through online mode and photocopy for which he used to take payments from the customers for the services he provided through online mode as well as cash. To receive online payments from his customers, the complainant had tied up with the OP to use its business app. Complainant has some issue with the OP for not settling/updating the payments received in his account for which the complainant has alleged deficiency in service and filed the present complaint for redressal of his grievance.

2. Admittedly the complainant is running a business which is "commercial" in nature which does not come under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shrikant G Mantri v. Punjab National Bank, Civil Appeal No.11397 of 2016, decided on 22.02.2022, after analyzing the law laid down in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute, 6 (1995) 3 SCC 5832 observed that:

"It could thus be seen that this Court has clearly held that the idea of enacting the said Act was to help the consumers get justice and fair treatment in the matter of goods and services purchased and availed by them in a market dominated by large trading and manufacturing bodies. It has been held that the entire Act revolves round the consumer and is designed to protect his interest. It provides for "business to consumer" disputes and not for "business to business disputes. It has been held that forums/ commissions provided by the said Act are not supposed to supplant but supplement the existing judicial system. The idea was to provide an additional forum providing inexpensive and speedy resolution of disputes arising between consumers and suppliers of goods and services."

3. Based on the facts presented before us in the present complaint and following the law laid down in the aforesaid case of Shrikant G Mantri v. Punjab National Bank(supra), we are of the view that the complainant cannot be termed as a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended from time to time. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed in limine. However, the Complainant is at liberty to approach the Civil Courts for redressal of his grievance.

 

(Richa Jindal)                       (Anil Kumar Koushal)                              (Sonica Mehrotra)

    Member                                   Member                                                   President