PRESIDENT DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SAMBALPUR

                             CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 99/2024

Present-Dr. Ramakanta Satapathy, President,

  Sri. SadanandaTripathy, Member,

Tarpan Kumar Pradhan,

S/O- Ramesh Chandra Pradhan,

R/O-UtkalGramin Bank Lane, Govindtola, Dhanupali,

Dist-Sambalpur-768005, Odisha.                                            ……….......Complainant.

Vrs.

Sangram Hotel

G.M. College Road, Sambalpur.

Dist-Sambalpur                                                              .…....……….Opp. Party

Counsels:-

1. For the Complainant         :- Self
2. For the O.P.                        :- Sri. C.K.Mohanty & Associates

Date of Filing:21.03.2024,  Date of Hearing :01.07.2024,  Date of Judgement :06.08.2024

Presented byDr. Ramakanta Satapathy, PRESIDENT

1. The case of the Complainant is that on 02.02.2024 when the Complainant visited the O.P. hotel and requested for online payment. The O.P. denied to having any online payment facility. The Complainant was having only Rs. 100/- with him and within that amount Complainant purchased veg-kurma. Due to lack of online facility the Complainant could not purchase leg-kawab. Complainant challenged the bill provided. Further being dis-satisfied with the behaviour filed the complaint.
2. The O.P. in reply submitted that the bill has been issued by the O.P. The allegations are baseless. The O.P. has sustained pecuniary loss in online transaction, hence it has stopped receiving of money through online/UPI transactions. It is not mandatory. Claim is vexations and liable to be dismissed.
3. Perused the contention of the parties. The Complainant filed Bill No. 7831 dated 02.02.2024 for Rs.70/-.
4. The Complainant submitted that as per section 269 SU of the Income Tax Act, 1991 the government has introduced cashless to encourage less-cash and accountability. The O.P. submitted that cashless transaction in business organisation is not mandatory. As per section 269 SU of the Income Tax Act, 1961 businesses exceeding Rs. 50.00 crores in annual sales must offer prescribed electronic payment modes (e.g. UPI, Rupay Cards) in addition to existing electronics options. Accordingly, contention of the Complainant is not acceptable. The Complainant failed to prove that the O.P. has turn-over more than Rs. 50.00 crores. Accordingly, the Complaint has no any merit and dismissed.

Order pronounced in open court on 6^th day of August, 2024.

Supply free copies to the parties.