Delhi

North East

CC/287/2022

Nikhil - Complainant(s)

Versus

Praveen Chaudhary - Opp.Party(s)

24 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.287/22                                   

In the matter of:

 

	Nikhil R/o C-21, Gali No. 3, Jagatpuri Ext. Delhi 110093	Complainant
	Versus
	Parveen Chaudhary, Proprietor of: Mayur’s Urban Spice B-1, Main 100 Feet Road, Chajjupur Near Durgapuri Chowk, Shahdara, Delhi 110032	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

13.07.2022 22.03.2024 24.04.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

ORDER

 

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 14.06.2022, Complainant had booked a table in the Opposite Party restaurant for celebration of his birthday party. Complainant stated that he along with his friends went to the Opposite Party restaurant and had ordered the food. Complainant stated that while he along with his friend was eating the food then he found a plastic piece in his mouth which came with the piece of bread or naan which the Complainant was chewing. Complainant stated that the piece of plastic injured the inner part of the mouth or inner cheeks which had resulted in lacerated wound over his inner cheeks. Complainant stated due to negligent act of the Opposite Party restaurant his birthday party was spoiled and had insulted among the friends. Complainant stated that he had made a complaint about this incident to the waiter and manager and they said that this was a small mistake and they would solve it at the time of bill but they did not even offer the fresh food. Complainant stated that he paid an amount of Rs. 2,898/- for the bill of food. On 15.06.2022, he sent a legal notice to the Opposite Party but they did not give any satisfactory reply. Hence, this shows the deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party. Complainant has prayed to refund the amount of the bill i.e. Rs. 2,898/-. Complainant also prayed an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of mental harassment and a compensation in respect of the injuries.
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 25.11.2022.

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant and we have also perused the file. The averments made by the Complainant in the complaint are supported by his affidavit and documents filed by him. The Opposite Party did not appear and did not file any written statement. Therefore, the averments made in the complaint are to be believed.
5. In view of the above, the complaint is allowed.  The Opposite Party is directed to pay the bill in question i.e. Rs. 2,898/- to the Complainant along  with interest     @ 9 % p.a. from the date of filing the complaint till recovery. The Opposite Party is further directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- to the Complainant  on account of litigation expenses and mental harassment along with interest @ 9 % p.a. from the date of this order till recovery.
6. Order announced on 24.04.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)		(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)		(President)