DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No. 280/2024

Order By: Shri S.S. Malhotra (President)

CC No.           280/2024

Date:-             16.07.2024

Present:-        Ld. Counsel for Complainant

Order on Admission

1. Heard on admission. It is interalia the case of the complainant that he purchased one Unibic Danish Coconut Cookies from OP2 and when he consumed the same he became ill and thereafter he had to undergo certain medical treatment where he spent substantive amount and after recovering he has approached OP2 to pay compensation and also had certain conversation with the OP1 and since there was defective product being sold by the OP2, as manufactured by OP1, the OPs be summoned and compensation of Rs.50,000/- alongwith medical expenses totaling of Rs.1,55,122/- be awarded in his favour. The Commission has enquired from the complainant as to whether he has any documentary evidence that he purchased the biscuit from OP2 in the form of some bill to which he submits that he has no invoice for purchasing the said item rather he admitted that it was payment made by cash. The basic grievance for which any person can approach the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act first he has to first prime-facie show that he is a consumer within definition of Section 2(7) of Consumer Protection Act.

Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act which reads as under;

The Section 2 of the Consumer defines consumer as follows:-

7) "consumer" means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or.........

7) (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. 

2. The first ingredient 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act 2019 that if any person has had purchased some goods from the OPs for consideration and the consideration may be deferred one or instant but it should be there & same be proved in the court of law. In the present case the complainant is not having any document that he purchased a particular brand of the particular company & in absence of any consideration in the form of document their contention cannot be appreciated. The Counsel for the complainant submits that notice at least be issued and let OP come and deny such fact. The Commission is of the opinion that it is not case where the adverse onus has to be shifted upon OP on the basis of some allegation leveled against someone without any documentary evidence. Without first qualifying to be the consumer within the definition Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act, even a notice cannot be issued to the OP, thereby giving an opportunity to such person to negotiate & misuse the provision of beneficial legislation. If such sort of vague pleadings are appreciated & are not nipped in the bid at initial stage, then there would enormous misuse of the beneficial legislation as on one hand, the consumer with good prima-facie would not be able to get an early disposal of matter, whereas such consumer who do not have any evidence would be encouraged to misuse the beneficial legislation for greed of compensation. The payment of consideration is a material fact and even the consideration which is payable in future is also covered under the Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act but for that consideration is necessary part to be complied with by the customer. Therefore the Commission is of the opinion that it is the prime responsibility of complainant to show first as to whether the complainant qualifies and falls within the jurisdiction of Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act and only thereafter notice can be issued. In the present case in the absence of any document of consideration notice cannot be issued. Complainant cannot be held to be a consumer within the definition under Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act. Further the complainant is resident of Uttar Pradesh and OP1 is stated to be having its office in Bangalore and OP2 is stated to be having its office of private canteen, in North West, however the Commission is not touching this aspect at this stage and suffice is to say that there was no relationship between complainant and so called OP1 so as to complainant become consumer of OPs.

Therefore complaint case is rejected.        

File be consigned to Record Room.