Haryana

Karnal

CC/699/2022

Parmod Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

SHYAM LEELA FASHION - Opp.Party(s)

V.S Malik

19 Dec 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KARNAL.

 

                                                      Complaint No. 699 of 2022

                                                      Date of instt.08.12.2022

                                                      Date of Decision 19.12.2022

 

Parmod Kumar son of Shri Suresh Dass, resident of village Sirenda, Post Office Maina Nagar, Katihar, Bihar, presently residing at Kalra Sweet shop, Sector-13, Main Market, Karnal, Haryana.

 

                                                 …….Complainant.

                                              Versus

 

Shyam Leela Fashion, shop no.G-18, GF, Prime Plaza Market, Ring Road, Surat-395002, Mobile no.9313181708.

 

                                                                   …..Opposite Party.

 

      Complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019

 

Before   Sh. Jaswant Singh……President.

              Sh. Vineet Kaushik….Member   

      Dr. Rekha Chaudhary……Member

 

 Present: Shri V.S.Malik, counsel for the complainant.

                                        

                (Jaswant Singh President)

ORDER:    

 

                Complaint presented today. It be checked and registered.               

 

                        The complainant has filed the present complaint u/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the opposite party (hereinafter referred to as ‘OP’) on the averments that OP deals in the sale of woman clothes and saree. Being impressed with the name and fame of the OP as famous on social media facebook, complainant purchased a saree as displayed by the OP on facebook/social media amounting to Rs.6350/- from the OP. Complainant paid the payment via UPI. Complainant received the saree and when he opened the parcel, he received he much cheap quality of saree which was for away from the quality of the product which was ordered by him and that saree is totally different as compared to shown on social media. Thereafter, complainant immediately returned the parcel to delivery boy and delivery boy assured the complainant that the amount paid by complainant would be duly credited to his account within 15 days but complainant did not receive the amount. After that complainant contacted the OP several times and requested to return the amount of Rs.6350/- but OP did not pay any heed to the request of complainant and lingered the matter on one pretext or the other. Then complainant sent a legal notice dated 10.03.2022 to the OPs but it also did not yield any result. In this way there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence this complaint.

2.             Arguments on the point of admissibility heard.

3.             Learned counsel for complainant submits that complainant purchased a saree from the OP amounting to Rs.6350/- through online. He further submits that complainant did not receive the saree which he ordered as the saree which he received is totally different as compared to shown on social media. Complainant returned the same to delivery boy but complainant did not receive the amount of Rs.6350/-. He further submits that complainant residing at Karnal hence present complaint is legally maintainable before this Commission.

4.             Now the question arise before us for consideration whether this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint or not?

5.             Territorial Jurisdiction to file the complaint before the  District Commission defined in Section 34(2) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019  which is reproduced as under:-

 (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,—

(a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or

(b) any of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business or has a branch office, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case the permission of the District Commission is given; or

(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or

(d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain

 

In the present case, complainant has taken a plea that he is presently residing at rented accommodation at house no.480, Sector-13, Extension Urban Estate, Karnal and working at the shop of Kalra Sweet, Sector-13, Main Market, Karnal. Complainant neither placed on file copy of rent agreement nor any proof with regard to serving at Kalra Sweet Shop, Karnal. The permanent address of the complainant is at village Sirenda, Post Office Maina Nagar, Katihar, Bihar and all the correspondence between the complainant and the OP has been done at abovesaid address.

6.             In view of above discussion, this Commission has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint and the same deserves to be dismissed and same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. However, complainant is at liberty to file the complainant before competent court of law, if so desired. Party concerned be communicated of the order accordingly and file be consigned to the record room.

Announced
Dated: 19.12.2022

 

                                                                 President,

                                                   District Consumer Disputes

                                                   Redressal Commission, Karnal.

 

       

                (Vineet Kaushik)        (Dr. Rekha Chaudhary)                                    

                       Member                      Member

Sushma

Stenographer