SURESH KUMAR YADAV vs Dining Plus India

THESE revision petitions have been filed by the petitioner against the order dated 16 -06 -2014 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UT Chandigarh (in short, ''the State Commission '') in Appeal No. 180/2014 - Dining Plus India & Ors. Vs. Suresh Kumar Yadav and Appeal No. 191 of 2014 -SureshKumar Yadav Vs. Dining Plus India & Ors., by which while dismissing appeal of complainant, appeal of opposite party was allowed and order allowing complaint against O.P. No. 1 & 2 was modified and complaint against O.P. No. 2 was dismissed.

BRIEF facts of the case are that complainant/petitioner, holder of credit card of O.P. No. 2 & 3 / Respondent No. 2 & 3 was approached by O.P. NO. 1/Respondent No. 1 on the ground that he was declared lucky winner in the draw of lots and further apprised that after charging Rs.6,300/ - through his credit card he would be supplied gift voucher, free air ticket and concessional coupons for accommodation, etc. It was further alleged that inspite of charging Rs.6,300/ - no gift voucher, etc. were provided to him. It was further submitted that O.P. No. 2 was claiming Rs.31,213/ - due on 09 -07 -2013 from the complainant, which demand was unfair. Alleging deficiency on the party of opposite party, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. O.P. No. 1 resisted complaint and submitted that complainant purchased dining plus kit on 27 -03 -2012 through his credit card for Rs.6,300/ - and he was dispatched kit through courier. It was further submitted that complainant did not approach O.P. No. 1 for not receiving kit. Ultimately on 06 -09 -2013, O.P. No. 1 refunded Rs.6,300/ - to the complainant and prayed for dismissal of complaint. None appeared for O.P. No. 2 and he was proceeded ex -parte. O.P. No. 3 submitted that he is a separate entity not responsible for issuance of credit cards and collection of payments and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint partly and directed O.P. No. 1 & 2 to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/ - and Rs.7,000/ - as cost of litigation. Appeal filed by the complainant was dismissed and appeal filed by O.P. No. 2 was allowed by State Commission vide impugned order against which these revision petitions have been filed along with application for condonation of delay.

HEARD petitioner in person at admission stage. As there is delay of only five days in filing revision petition, delay stands condoned for the reasons mentioned in the application.

PETITIONER submitted that learned District Forum rightly allowed complaint against O.P. No. 2 but learned State Commission committed error in dismissing complaint against O.P. No. 2, hence revision petition be admitted.

PERUSAL of record clearly reveals that Rs.6,300/ - were charged from the complainant ''s credit card and amount was received by O.P. No. 1 and ultimately this amount was refunded by O.P. No. 1 to the complainant. O.P. No. 2 had no role in lucky draw for purchase of dining plus kit and O.P. No. 2 was entitled to recover this amount from the complainant. Whatever the amount became due from the complainant upto 09 -07 -2013, O.P. No. 2 had every right to recover this amount from the complainant. Learned District Forum wrongly fastened liability on O.P. No. 2 and learned State Commission has not committed any error in allowing appeal against O.P. No. 2 as there was no liability on the part of O.P. NO. 2 to refund amount of Rs.6,300/ - to the complainant.

LEARNED State Commission rightly dismissed appeal of the complainant in the light of aforesaid discussion.

I find no illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order and both revision petitions are liable to be dismissed.

CONSEQUENT LY , revision petitions filed by the petitioner are dismissed at admission stage with no order as to costs.