Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/55/2021

Ajay Kumar Sharma - Complainant(s)

Versus

Zomato Pvt. Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

In Person

11 Feb 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                    

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/55/2021
Date of Institution	:	21/01/2021
Date of Decision	:	11/02/2021

 

Ajay Kumar Sharma son of late Shri M.L. Sharma r/o House No.3018, Sector 23-D, Chandigarh

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1. Zomato Private Limited, Ground Floor, Tower C, Vipul Tech Square, Sector 43, Golf Course Road, Gurugram Haryana through its CEO Deepinder Goyal.
2. Zomato Media Pvt. Ltd., Corporate Office, SCO 201, Second Floor, Inner Market, Sector 7-C, Chandigarh through its Manager.

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	MRS. SURJEET KAUR	MEMBER
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

 

                                               

ARGUED BY

:

Complainant in person

 

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.      Averments made in the consumer complaint are, OPs claim users will get their food guaranteed on time or get their money back and Zomato’s “on time or free” will be applicable for the entire Zomato menu of thousands of restaurants across 100+ cities in India.  Complainant’s case is on 6.3.2020 at around 10:16 p.m. he online ordered Italy Treat Pizza etc. costing ₹234/- for his children and made the total payment of ₹287.70 through Paytm inclusive of taxes and ₹10/- for on time or free. However, the OPs failed to deliver the order till 10.30 p.m. Thereafter the complainant received a message the order is declined, refund process was initiated and the amount was to be refunded in two business days.  His case is, there has been misleading advertisement on the part of the OPs and referred to certain sections of Central Consumer Protection Authority (Prevention of Misleading Advertisement and Necessary Due Diligence for Endorsement of Advertisement) Guidelines 2020. He has also referred to the definition of advertisement and Sections 28, 46 & 47 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 and claimed he has also sent a complaint to the Chief Commissioner, Consumer Protection Authority, New Delhi. The amount was refunded to the complainant, but, he prayed for directing the OPs to pay ₹287.70 as they failed to supply food on time; to either fulfill their promise or take back their promotional advertisement “KABHI TO LATE HO JAATA”, impose penalty of ₹1,00,000/- under Section 21; impose fine of ₹50,000/-; pay ₹50,000/- for harassment and ₹50,000/- as litigation expenses.
2.     We have heard the complainant in person at preliminary stage.
3.     At the very outset, we notice the Sections referred by the complainant in his consumer complaint under paragraphs No.9 to 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 for the enlightenment of this Commission. With due regard to the complainant, he has referred to wrong sections. As matter of fact, these are definitions of advertisement, misleading advertisement, unfair contract and unfair trade practice given in the definition clause contained under Sections 2 (1), (28), (46) & (47) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. It is not made out how the complainant covers the violations under these provisions of unfair contract or unfair trade practice.  It is the own pleading of the complainant there is an advertisement “KABHI TO LATE HO JAATA” and the order was placed on 6.3.2020 at 10:16 p.m. and after 14-15 minutes a message was received whereby his order was declined and refund process was initiated. This is the claim of the complainant himself and is also made out from Annexure C-2 and C-3 which reflects that process was initiated on the same day after 14-15 minutes for refund of the amount as order was declined.
4.     The claim of the complainant is that he and his children had to sleep without food. This is ridiculous. The order was placed at around 10:16 p.m. and after about 15 minutes it was declined and refund was admittedly received by the complainant. It is so slight a harm, if any, which is more sentimental in nature instead of actual harm. 
5.     The complainant in his wisdom argued it is unfair trade practice. How it is unfair trade practice? According to the complainant, misleading advertisement also falls under unfair trade practice. Again to our mind this enlightenment by the complainant is bad in the eyes of law.  Parliament in its wisdom has defined advertisement under clause (1) of Section 2 and unfair contract and unfair trade practice under clauses (46) & (47) respectively of the same section i.e. definition clauses.  If the Parliament intended to cover misleading advertisement or say advertisement in the clause of definition, then there was no necessity to break it up and put it clause wise. 
6.     However, we are afraid, how the act of the OPs falls under the definition of unfair trade practice when the process to refund the amount was initiated just after around 15 minutes. Further the complainant for the misleading advertisement, if any, had already referred the matter to the Central Authority and by virtue of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 misleading advertisement, if any, is to be taken cognizance and the penalties are imposed by the Central Authority. Our area of adjudication confines to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. The complainant even after receipt of the amount which he had parted with again prayed in the relief clause for the refund of the amount of ₹287.70 besides imposition of penalty upon the OPs under Section 21 of the Act.  We have already referred, it is the domain of the Central Authority under Section 21 of the Act ibid and we cannot overstep our jurisdiction.  We cannot be party to a legal abuse of the process of law.
7.     From the above material on record, we find it is not an admitable consumer complaint and proceed to dismiss the same, at preliminary stage. Ordered accordingly. 
8.     Certified copies of this order be sent to the complainant free of charge. The file be consigned.

	Sd/-	Sd/-	Sd/-
11/02/2021	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Surjeet Kaur]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	Member	President