SURESH KUMAR YADAV Vs. DINING PLUS INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 Suresh Kumar 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.

(2.) 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.

(3.) Heard petitioner in person at admission stage.