SANJAY S.RATHORE filed a consumer case on 04 Jul 2024 against SAND SHOPPING HUB in the StateCommission Consumer Court. The case no is A/14/2326 and the judgment uploaded on 05 Jul 2024.
M. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
FIRST APPEAL NO. 2326 OF 2014
(Arising out of order dated 18.11.2014 passed in C.C.No.516/2014 by District Commission, Gwalior)
SANJAY SINGH RATHORE,
S/O SHRI U. S. RATHORE,
R/O BM-237, DEENDAYAL NAGAR,
BHIND ROAD, GWALIOR (M.P.) … APPELLANT.
Versus
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SAND SHOPPING HUB,
OFFICE NO.301, AGRAWAL COMPLEX,
S-524 SCHOOL BLOCK, SHAKARPUR,
DELHI-110 092. …. RESPONDENT.
BEFORE :
HON’BLE SHRI A. K. TIWARI : ACTING PRESIDENT
HON’BLE DR. SRIKANT PANDEY : MEMBER
COUNSEL FOR PARTIES :
Shri Hemant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.
None for the respondent.
O R D E R
(Passed On 04.07.2024)
The following order of the Commission was delivered by A. K. Tiwari, Acting President:
This appeal by the complainant/appellant is directed against the order dated 18.11.2014 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Gwalior (for short ‘District Commission’) in C.C.No.516/2014, whereby the complainant’s complaint has been dismissed as not maintainable at the admission stage.
-2-
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Perused the record.
3. The complainant/appellant filed a complaint before the District Commission alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on part of opposite party/respondent in not providing the facilities and benefits as assured by them despite receiving the amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. He has submitted that on 16.02.2012 he received a call from the opposite party’s executive that the opposite party is running a contest and if he will participate he would get some cash prize of Rs.19 lakhs and benefits in placing the order with the opposite party. He paid Rs.12,00,000/- via online to opposite party. However, the complainant neither received money nor any kind of positive response from the opposite party though he received number of products as a complimentary gift from the opposite party which he never ordered. However, the District Commission dismissed the complaint as not maintainable at the admission stage.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the complainant/appellant and on perusal of impugned order as also appeal memo we are of considered view that the notice of the complaint ought to have been issued to the opposite party and thereafter the evidence brought on record by the parties should have been considered. Subsequently, an order should have been passed after taking into consideration the version of both parties.
5. Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid, we are of considered view that the case deserves to be decided after issuance of notice to the opposite parties. The matter is therefore remanded back to the District Commission for
-3-
decision afresh, after issuing notice to the opposite parties. Accordingly, the impugned order is set-aside and the matter is remanded to the District Commission.
6. Parties are directed to appear before the District Commission on 05.08.2024.
7. The District Commission is directed to proceed further in the matter, in accordance with law. All the questions involved in the matter including maintainability are kept open.
8. The District Commission shall decide the complaint in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.
9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this appeal stands disposed of.
(A. K. Tiwari) (Dr. Srikant Pandey)
Acting President Member
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
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.