District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ,Faridabad.
Consumer Complaint No.165/2022.
Date of Institution: 28.03.2022.
Date of Order: 07.12.2022.
Raj Kumar Tanwar, Advocate, Chamber No. 370, Lawyer Chamber Building, District Courts, Sector-12, Faridabad.
…….Complainant……..
Versus
Calcutta Emporium, Shop NO.114, Near Milap Dawakhana, New Industrial Township, NIT, Faridabad through its proprietor.
…Opposite party……
Complaint under section-12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Now amended Section 34 of Consumer protection Act 2019.
BEFORE: Amit Arora……………..President
Mukesh Sharma…………Member.
Indira Bhadana………….Member.
PRESENT: Sh. Vikas Bhadana, counsel for the complainant.
Sh. Ravi Nagpal, counsel for opposite party.
ORDER:
Counsel for the applicant/opposite party has filed an application for dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the complainant had no locus standi to file the present complaint. The complainant in in his pleading himself pleaded that the newphew of the complainant purchased the alleged coat pant, hence, the complainant is liable to be dismissed. The complainant is not the “Consumer” as per the definition under section 2(7) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, as he himself pleaded that his nephew purchased the alleged coat pant, in these circumstance, the complainant is not the consumer. It is also alleged that no bill/invoice, document or receipt has been placed on record by the complainant, which shows that the complainant has not purchased the alleged coat pant from the opposite party. It has been prayed that that the complaint of the complainant may kindly be dismissed in the interest of justice.
2. This application has been opposed by the complainant stating that the nephew of the complainant had purchased the coat pant for the children of complainant and the complainant had given the amount for purchase of the said coat pant and the complainant visited the shop of opposite party for replacement of the coat pant. It is submitted that the opposite party did not give any receipt of the said coat pant, the complainant demanded the receipt, but the opposite party refused to issue any receipt to the complainant, which is duly proved in CCTV footage on dated 23.11.2021 which is installed in his showroom and on 24.11.2021 the complainant called the opposite party on his mobile No. 9711286484 and further requested to change it, but the opposite party clearly refused to return or exchange the same. The complainant has prayed for the dismissal of the application.
3. Heard.
4. Keeping in view of the facts and contents of the application, the Commission is of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as no authentic proof /Bill of purchase has been attached by the complainant with his complaint .Hence, the complainant is not a consumer as provided under Section 2(1) (d) (i) of the Consumer Protection Act.
5. Resultantly, the application filed by the opposite party for dismissal of the complaint has been allowed and the main complaint is dismissed. Copy of this order be given to the parties free of costs and file be consigned to the record room.
Announced on: 07.12.2022 (Amit Arora)
President
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Mukesh Sharma)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
(Indira Bhadana)
Member
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, Faridabad.
