Delhi

North East

CC/435/2022

Vinay Kumar Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Wow Momo Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

02 Apr 2024

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: NORTH-EAST

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

D.C. OFFICE COMPLEX, BUNKAR VIHAR, NAND NAGRI, DELHI-93

 

Complaint Case No.435/22

In the matter of:

 

	Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta, S/o Late Sh. Kailash Chand Gupta, R/o C9/419, Third Floor Brijpuri, Delhi 110094	Complainant
	Versus
	Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., (Corporate Office) B-263, Okhla Industrial Area, Okhla Phase 1, New Delhi	Opposite Party

 

DATE OF INSTITUTION:         JUDGMENT RESERVED ON:                         DATE OF ORDER  :

01.12.2022 31.01.2024 02.04.2024

 

CORAM:

Surinder Kumar Sharma, President

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

Adarsh Nain, Member

ORDER

 

Anil Kumar Bamba, Member

The Complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

Case of the Complainant

1. The case of the Complainant as revealed from the record is that on 22.09.2022, Complainant and his wife went to the food court of Pacific Mall Sahibabad where he ordered VDPFM 8pcs, 2 Vegmoburger and 2 pepsi from the Opposite Party. Complainant stated that he asked the staff of Opposite Party to pack the half of his food items as he wanted to take away it to home. It is his case that while paying for this order Complainant got to know that Opposite Party had charged him Rs. 5/- for the carry bag in the bill without his consent and that bag also had their company logo on it. Complainant stated that when he raised the issue with the staff of Opposite Party then they did not respond properly and asked to pay the charges for the carry bag which makes the Complainant feel insulted in front of public. Complainant stated that due to the unfair trade practice of the Opposite Party his wife had suffered mental agony and harassment. Complainant stated that despite the efforts of the Complainant the Opposite Party had charged him Rs. 5/- for the carry bag with their logo. Complainant stated that Opposite Party used the Complainant as their advertising agent at the cost of the Complainant which amounts to unfair trade practice. On 13.10.2022, Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Party. On 21.11.2022, Complainant received the reply to the legal notice. Complainant has prayed to direct the Opposite Party to provide free carry bag to all the customers if they are selling with their logo and for an amount of Rs. 5/- which was charged to the Complainant. Complainant also prayed for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of mental harassment, Rs. 50,000/- on account of punitive damages and Rs. 51,000/- on account of legal proceedings.   
2. None has appeared on behalf of the Opposite Party despite service of notice to contest the case. Therefore, Opposite Party was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 17.04.2023

Ex- Parte Evidence of the Complainant

3. The Complainant in support of his case filed his affidavit wherein he has supported the assertions made in the complaint.

Arguments & Conclusion

4. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant. We have also perused the file and written arguments filed by the Complainant. The case of the Complainant is that he went to Opposite Party and ordered some food items for the consumption in the premises of the Opposite Party. Since, he could not consume all the food items, he asked the staff of the Opposite Party to pack the remaining part of his food item as he want to take away to the home. While paying for his order, the Complainant notice that Opposite Party charge Rs. 5/- for the carry bag in his bill without asking him and the bag has also Opposite Party company’s logo on it. Complainant raised the issue with the staff of the Opposite Party regarding charging of Rs. 5/- for the carry bag which they refused to do so and insisted for the payment of the cost of the bag due to which he has suffered mental agony and harassment due to unfair trade practice of Opposite Party.
5. It is clear from the above that the Complainant ordered the food item for the consumption in the premises of the Opposite Party. It is also admitted by him that he himself asked for packing of the remaining food item to take away to his home. It is also clear from the invoice filed by the Complainant in which it is mentioned the cost of the carry bag. Nowhere in his complaint, Complainant placed any evidence regarding the cost of the food also included cost of the carry bag. In this case, if Complainant wants to take away remaining food item either he bring his own bag or container or he has to pay for the packing material. Complainant also failed to make his case of unfair trade practice under section 2 (47) of the Consumer Protection Act 2019.
6. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice followed by the Opposite Party. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
7. Order announced on 02.04.2024.

Copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost

File be consigned to Record Room.

(Anil Kumar Bamba)	(Adarsh Nain)	(Surinder Kumar Sharma)
(Member)	(Member)	(President)