DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.599/2007
Mrs. Geeta Puri
W/o Sh. Sanjeev Puri,
R/o L-24 A, South Extn., Part-II,
New Delhi-110049 ……Complainant
Versus
1. Sh. Vikram Mayor
Prop. of M/s Startle Entertainment
D-16/H, Hauz Khas
New Delhi-110016
2. Ms. Deeksha Bhatia
M. D. M/s Global Village &
M/s E 4 Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
C-9, East of Kailash, Capt. Gaur Marg,
New Delhi-110065
Both the OPs also at:
C-92, First Floor, East of Kailash
New Delhi …Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 18.05.16 Date of Order : 20.2.2016
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
Briefly stated, the case of the Complainant in brief is that she is running her business under the name and style of M/s Gloss Couture. In the month of February, 2007, the OP No.2 through its representative No.1 approached the Complainant and represented that they were organizing an International Fair in Delhi, festooned with a carnival like atmosphere under the name “Global Village India” and the project was in joint venture with the Delhi Tourism. She was informed that fair shall start on 15.03.07 and shall conclude on 15.04.07. During the talks, both the OPs showed a very rosy picture of their company and induced her to book a stall with them. She agreed to book a stall with the OPs and accordingly paid a sum of Rs.1 lakh to them through two cheques for Rs.25,000/- & Rs.75,000/- which were encashed by the OPs. The OPs miserably failed to ensure to start the fair on 15.03.07 and no participants till 02.04.07 and no stall was allotted to her as per specification, size, location and profile of surrounding stalls as promised by them. She wrote a letter dated 2.4.2007 to the OPs to refund the money paid to them. She came to know that the OPs mislead her in paying Rs.1 lakh as booking amount whereas they had booked the similar stalls for Rs.10,000/-. She gave a written complaint to the police. She was forced to take up a stall other than what was initially allotted to her though she had spent for making arrangement and invested approx. Rs.70,000/- for interiors of the stall. The Complainant has stated that she sent a legal notice to the OP to refund an amount of Rs.1 lakh and sum of Rs.5 lakhs as damages and Rs.1 lakh against the goods stolen from the stall under the control of OPs. Hence, pleading deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and negligence on the part of OPs, the complaint has been filed with the following prayer:
Direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.7 lakhs towards refund of booking, damages and loss of business etc. alongwith 18% of interest.
In the written statement OP No.1 has stated that the Complainant does not come under the definition of “consumer” as she has not bought any goods nor was a user of any goods nor did she hire any services and neither was she a beneficiary of services. The transaction was a commercial transaction and she booked a stall in the fair organized by them for commercial purpose. Hence, there was no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.1 and the Consumer Forum has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the complaint as the dispute requires taking of exhaustive evidence which can only be done by the civil court. The present complaint is abuse of law, just an attempt to save the court fees. The Complainant booked a stall in the fair after going through the advertisement and after being convinced about the popularity of the fair she booked a stall. The organizers were to start fair on 15.03.07 but due to inclement weather, non-availability of the Delhi Police and other reasons the fair could start only in April, 2007 and the circumstances leading to the delay of the fair cannot be attributed to OP-1 whose responsibility extended only to the booking of the stall. The fair was a huge success and there was no responsibility or obligation on behalf of OP No.1 to ensure and gather the customers for the Complainant. It seems that she had no experience and ability to perform in such event. It is denied that the similar stall was booked for Rs.10,000/-. OP No.1 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
In the written statement OP No.2 has stated inter-alia that as per terms and conditions of booking for stall the amount is not refundable in any circumstances. The Complainant was duly allotted a stall which was utilized by her and, hence, there is no question of refund of amount. She had booked the stall for commercial purpose for earning profit and as such has no locus-standi to file the complaint under the Consumer Protection Act as the Complainant is not a ‘consumer.” The dispute requires exhaustive evidence which can only be done by the Civil Court. The Complainant herself approached the OP No.1 to book a stall in the fair after going through the advertisement of the fair in the various newspapers etc. After convincing herself about the popularity of the fair she had booked a stall; the fair was to be started on 15.03.07 but due to bad weather in Delhi, non-availability of Delhi Police and other reasons the fair was postponed. It is denied that the Complainant had spent Rs.70,000/- on interiors. On the other hand, OP No.2 suffered losses on account of bad weather and on account of non payment of balance amount of Rs.50,000/- by the Complainant. OP No.2 was under no obligation to bring the customers for the Complainant and the Complainant was to ensure sale of the product of her own. The said fair was a huge success and there was huge participation. OP No.2 has requested to dismiss the complaint.
No rejoinder has been filed by the Complainant to the written statements of OPs.
Complainant has filed her own affidavit in evidence while affidavit of Sh.Vikram Mayor, Proprietor of OP-1 and affidavit Sh. Kapil Bhatia, Director of OP-2 have been filed in evidence on behalf of the OP No.1 & 2 respectively.
Written arguments have been filed. We have heard Counsel for OP No.2 and have also gone through the file very carefully.
It is not in dispute that the Complainant had booked a stall with the OPs and paid Rs.1 lakh as booking amount. The fair was to be started on 15.03.07 but due to bad weather and other reasons the fair was started in the month of April, 2007. The Complainant has filed a complaint dated 19.04.07 before the SHO, Police Chowki, Global Village (DND Flyover), New Delhi regarding stolen of goods from stall No.09, the Dubai Shopping Festival Fair (Copy Annexure CW-1/F).
Hence, it is proved that the Complainant had booked a stall for commercial purpose managed by the OP No.2. She has neither pleaded nor proved that she had booked the stall for the purpose of earning her livelihood. Rather she had booked the stall for promoting her business and sale of goods. OPs have proved this fact by documentary evidence. Therefore, the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 20.2.2016.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 599/07
20.2.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
