DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 259/2018
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
14.06.2018 28.06.2018 09.07.2018
Complainant/s :- 1. Sandip Halder,
S/o of Samir Baran Halder,
Residing at
Bongaon, Motiganj Military Road,
P.O- Motiganj, P.S- Bongaon,
Pin- 743235
=Vs.=
O.P/s:- 1. The Branch Manager of OYO,
Situated at
BPO 7, 6th Floor,
ECO Station Building,
Salt Lake City, Sector- 5
Near Philips More
P.S- Electronic Complex
Kolkata- 91
2. The OYO
Registered office situated at
NNGR, OYO Room Service,
Gurgaon, Pin- 122018
Represented by its main officer(s) or
Authorized officer(s)
3. Paytm,
Registered office situated at
1st Floor, Devika Tower,
Nehru Place,
New Delhi- 110019,
Represented by its main officer(s) or
Authorized officer (s)
4. Paytm,
Kolkata branch
P.S- Electronic Complex
Kolkata- 700091,
Represented by its main officer(s) or
Authorized officer(s)
5. The manager Hotel Woodland>
8253/6 Arakashan Road,
Paharganj, New Delhi- 55
Cont……….2
:2:
P R E S E N T :- Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay………..…..President.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder …………………………….Member.
Final Order
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not pay him any compensation and litigation cost along with interest on the principal amount.
During hearing on the point of admissibility of the complaint the complainant has stated that the principal amount paid by him has already been refunded. But as there was deficiency in service on behalf of the OPs he has prayed for litigation cost and compensation from the OPs. Till filing of this complainant no amount is paid to him on the said two counts, hence this complaint.
Upon perusal of petition of complaint in our view that as the complainant has duly received the amount paid by him, hence this complaint cannot be maintainable as the complainant is not a consumer at all. In this respect we may mention to the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of Vatika Limited vs. K. L. Kaul, decided on 15.12.2014 and reported in Volumn I (2015) CPJ 402(NC), in our view that the said observation can be implemented in the case in hand as the facts of the mentioned case and the instant one are almost similar and identical in nature. It is observed therein that once the Complainant accepted the Cheque in full and final settlement of his claim and realized the amount, he now cannot be permitted to reopen matter by filing complaint (Para no- 8). In another Judgment passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of MEERUT DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. MANJU GUPTA, decided on 09.05.2014, reported in Volumn II (2014) CPJ 705 (NC), wherein it has been observed that since the Complainant got the refund amount, then he/ she ceases to be a consumer (Para 12 and 13). In our view the said Ruling can be applicable in the instant complaint as the Complainant got the entire amount paid by him from the OPs and after getting the said amount complainant has filed this complaint. Therefore after getting of the entire amount as paid by him to the OPs he cannot be a consumer and he cannot file any consumer complaint.
The complainant has placed reliance on the Judgment passed by SCDRC, Kerala, reported in 2001(3), CPJ, 86. Upon perusal of the said Judgment in our view that as the Hon’ble NCDRC has been pleased to observe in the abovementioned observation as mentioned, hence the Judgment passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, Kerala cannot be applicable.
Hence it is ordered that the Consumer Complaint being no- 259/2018 is hereby dismissed being not maintainable and without being admitted.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated and Corrected by
