Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Integrated with over 4 crore judgments and laws — designed for legal practitioners, researchers, students and institutions

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Lotus Herbals vs Vikas Kumar & Others on 10 August, 2023

 STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
             PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

                 First Appeal No.185 of 2023
                                   Date of institution :   15.03.2023
                                   Reserved on         :   02.08.2023
                                   Date of decision :      14.08.2023

M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, B-9, Industrial Area, Bishanpura
Road, A Block, Sector 58, Noida, Uttar Pardesh, 201301, through its
duly authorized person/GPA D.K. Gupta.

                                     ....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3
                                 Versus

1.

Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.30057, Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda, email id [email protected], Mobile No.9855751800.

.....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. LimeRoad.com, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (India), through MD/CO.

3. Avni Traders, CB 152A, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi-110028, through MD/CO. (Dismissed as withdrawn before the District Commission).

.....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 2) First Appeal No.186 of 2023 Date of institution : 15.03.2023 Reserved on : 02.08.2023 Date of decision : 14.08.2023 M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, B-9, Industrial Area, Bishanpura Road, A Block, Sector 58, Noida, Uttar Pardesh, 201301, through its duly authorized person/GPA D.K. Gupta.

....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus First Appeal No.185 of 2023 2

1. Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.30057, Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda, email id [email protected], Mobile No.9855751800.

.....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. LimeRoad.com, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (India), through MD/CO.

3. Avni Traders, CB 152A, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi-110028, through MD/CO. (Dismissed as withdrawn before the District Commission).

.....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 3) First Appeal No.187 of 2023 Date of institution : 15.03.2023 Reserved on : 02.08.2023 Date of decision : 14.08.2023 M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, B-9, Industrial Area, Bishanpura Road, A Block, Sector 58, Noida, Uttar Pardesh, 201301, through its duly authorized person/GPA D.K. Gupta.

....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus

1. Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.30057, Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda, email id [email protected], Mobile No.9855751800.

.....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. LimeRoad.com, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (India), through MD/CO.

3. Avni Traders, CB 152A, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi-110028, through MD/CO. (Dismissed as withdrawn before the District Commission).

.....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 4) First Appeal No.188 of 2023 Date of institution : 15.03.2023 First Appeal No.185 of 2023 3 Reserved on : 02.08.2023 Date of decision : 14.08.2023 M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, B-9, Industrial Area, Bishanpura Road, A Block, Sector 58, Noida, Uttar Pardesh, 201301, through its duly authorized person/GPA D.K. Gupta.

....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus

1. Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.30057, Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda, email id [email protected], Mobile No.9855751800.

.....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. LimeRoad.com, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (India), through MD/CO.

3. Avni Traders, CB 152A, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi-110028, through MD/CO. (Dismissed as withdrawn before the District Commission).

.....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 5) First Appeal No.189 of 2023 Date of institution : 15.03.2023 Reserved on : 02.08.2023 Date of decision : 14.08.2023 M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, B-9, Industrial Area, Bishanpura Road, A Block, Sector 58, Noida, Uttar Pardesh, 201301, through its duly authorized person/GPA D.K. Gupta.

....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus

1. Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.30057, Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda, email id [email protected], Mobile No.9855751800.

.....Respondent No.1/Complainant First Appeal No.185 of 2023 4

2. LimeRoad.com, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (India), through MD/CO.

3. Avni Traders, CB 152A, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi-110028, through MD/CO. (Dismissed as withdrawn before the District Commission).

.....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 6) First Appeal No.190 of 2023 Date of institution : 15.03.2023 Reserved on : 02.08.2023 Date of decision : 14.08.2023 M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, B-9, Industrial Area, Bishanpura Road, A Block, Sector 58, Noida, Uttar Pardesh, 201301, through its duly authorized person/GPA D.K. Gupta.

....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus

1. Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.30057, Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda, email id [email protected], Mobile No.9855751800.

.....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. LimeRoad.com, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (India), through MD/CO.

3. Avni Traders, CB 152A, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi-110028, through MD/CO. (Dismissed as withdrawn before the District Commission).

.....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 7) First Appeal No.191 of 2023 Date of institution : 15.03.2023 Reserved on : 02.08.2023 Date of decision : 14.08.2023 M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, B-9, Industrial Area, Bishanpura Road, A Block, Sector 58, Noida, Uttar Pardesh, 201301, through its duly authorized person/GPA D.K. Gupta.

First Appeal No.185 of 2023 5

....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus

1. Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.30057, Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda, email id [email protected], Mobile No.9855751800.

.....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. LimeRoad.com, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (India), through MD/CO.

3. Avni Traders, CB 152A, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi-110028, through MD/CO. (Dismissed as withdrawn before the District Commission).

.....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 8) First Appeal No.192 of 2023 Date of institution : 15.03.2023 Reserved on : 02.08.2023 Date of decision : 14.08.2023 M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, B-9, Industrial Area, Bishanpura Road, A Block, Sector 58, Noida, Uttar Pardesh, 201301, through its duly authorized person/GPA D.K. Gupta.

....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus

1. Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.30057, Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda, email id [email protected], Mobile No.9855751800.

.....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. LimeRoad.com, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (India), through MD/CO.

3. Avni Traders, CB 152A, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi-110028, through MD/CO. (Dismissed as withdrawn before the District Commission).

First Appeal No.185 of 2023 6

.....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 9) First Appeal No.193 of 2023 Date of institution : 15.03.2023 Reserved on : 02.08.2023 Date of decision : 14.08.2023 M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, B-9, Industrial Area, Bishanpura Road, A Block, Sector 58, Noida, Uttar Pardesh, 201301, through its duly authorized person/GPA D.K. Gupta.

....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus

1. Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.30057, Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda, email id [email protected], Mobile No.9855751800.

.....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. LimeRoad.com, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (India), through MD/CO.

3. Avni Traders, CB 152A, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi-110028, through MD/CO. (Dismissed as withdrawn before the District Commission).

.....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 AND

10) First Appeal No.194 of 2023 Date of institution : 15.03.2023 Reserved on : 02.08.2023 Date of decision : 14.08.2023 M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, B-9, Industrial Area, Bishanpura Road, A Block, Sector 58, Noida, Uttar Pardesh, 201301, through its duly authorized person/GPA D.K. Gupta.

....Appellant/Opposite Party No.3 Versus First Appeal No.185 of 2023 7

1. Vikas Kumar son of Sh. Ramesh Kumar, resident of House No.30057, Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Bathinda, email id [email protected], Mobile No.9855751800.

.....Respondent No.1/Complainant

2. LimeRoad.com, 4th & 5th Floor, Plot No.48, Sector 44, Near HUDA City Centre Metro Station, Gurugram, Haryana-122001 (India), through MD/CO.

3. Avni Traders, CB 152A, Second Floor, Ring Road, Naraina, Delhi-110028, through MD/CO. (Dismissed as withdrawn before the District Commission).

.....Respondents No.2 & 3/ Opposite Parties No.1 & 2 Appeals under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 against the similar orders dated 23.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda.

Quorum:-

Hon'ble Mrs. Justice Daya Chaudhary, President
1) Whether Reporters of the Newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes/No
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes/No
3) Whether judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Argued by:-
For the appellant : Sh. Y.D. Sharma, Advocate For respondents No.1&2 : None .................................................................................. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY, PRESIDENT By this order of mine total ten Appeals i.e. First Appeal No.185 of 2023, First Appeal No.186 of 2023, First Appeal No.187 of 2023, First Appeal No.188 of 2023, First Appeal No.189 of 2023, First Appeal No.190 of 2023, First Appeal No.191 of 2023, First First Appeal No.185 of 2023 8 Appeal No.192 of 2023, First Appeal No.193 of 2023 and First Appeal No.194 of 2023 shall be disposed off as the same have been filed to challenge the same impugned orders dated 23.12.2022 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bathinda (in short the "District Commission") whereby the complaints filed by respondent No.1/complainant Vikas Kumar have been partly allowed.
2. Aggrieved by the said order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the District Commission, OP No.3 has filed separate appeals before this Commission.
3. First Appeals No.185 of 2023 to 194 of 2023 have been filed by the appellant/OP No.3- M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited, through its authorized person/GPA holder Sh. D.K. Gupta.
4. However, the facts are being extracted from First Appeal No.185 of 2023 filed by M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited Vs. Vikas Kumar & others.
5. Briefly, the facts of the case as made out by the complainant-Vikash Kumar while filing Consumer Complaint No.263 of 2021 before the District Commission has mentioned in the complaint that he was having online account with OP No.1-LimeRoad.com. The OPs had advertised their product from time to time through email or through messages to the customers or to the public at large. OP No.1 was the authorized e-commerce Company for selling the apparels, etc. on the website and OP No.2-Avani Traders was the seller/supplier as per bill/invoice. OP No.3- Lotus Herbals Private Limited is the First Appeal No.185 of 2023 9 manufacturer of the product. The OPs were giving many offers to allure the customers to buy their products. It was further mentioned that the complainant saw the offer on 14.10.2020 as given by the OPs and the complainant purchased product i.e. Lotus Make Up Red Sindoor, through online mode, vide order No.75344506 dated 14.10.2020 and paid the consideration amount of Rs.113/- (including extra IGST & other charges). Said amount was paid through debit card. It was mentioned that MRP of the product was Rs.135/- which was inclusive of all the taxes. However, the OPs for promoting the sale of the products offered price of product @Rs.120/- after giving the discount of Rs.13/- to the complainant, being the holder of Gold Membership. The product so purchased was for the price of Rs.107/-.

Further it was mentioned that the OPs still charged Rs.6/- as IGST charges. Further it was mentioned that the product of the complainant was despatched to him by OPs and it was also delivered to him. It was further mentioned in the complaint that there was difference between offer price breakup on the website and invoice price breakup. The breakup of prices is as under:-

Offer Price Breakup of the Invoice Price Breakup product Summary Payment Mode Payu Total Price - Rs.120/- MRP Price : 135 Shipping Charges + Rs.free Shipping + Handling Cost :00 Gold Discount - Rs.13 Cod Charges : 0 Applicable Tax & Charges-Rs.6 Discount : 22 Amount Payable - Rs.113 IGST amount : 17.24 Buy Now Amount paid : Rs.113 First Appeal No.185 of 2023 10 Screen Shot of the offer price Copy of the bill attached attached herewith as Ex.C1 herewith as Ex.C2 It was further mentioned in the complaint that the OPs with malafide intention and for earning more profit and by adopting unfair trade practice in connivance with the other party had charged extra IGST amount of Rs.6/- whereas the same was included in the MRP. It was also mentioned that the OPs used to give offer by misleading price breakup and certain information on the Web portal and thereafter on purchasing of the product they used to charge extra amount of IGST from the buyers of the product. It was further mentioned in the complaint regarding charging of extra IGST used to be sent to the OPs' customer care email or by call but no action was taken.
6. Notices of the complaints were sent to the OPs through registered A.D. but none had appeared on behalf of OPs No.1 & 3 and they were proceeded exparte. The complaint against OP No.2 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 21.12.2022.
7. The complainant had tendered the photocopy of bill Ex.C-1 and photocopy of screenshot Ex.C-2 in evidence.
8. After considering the contents of the complaint filed by the complainant and all the documents available on the file and also by hearing the arguments, the complaint was partly allowed by awarding Rs.3000/- towards excess amount charged from the complainant as cost and compensation against OPs No.1 and 3. The compliance of the order passed by the District Commission was to be made jointly First Appeal No.185 of 2023 11 and severally by OPs No.1 and 3 within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
9. The District Commission passed the same order dated 23.12.2022 in all the complaints filed by the same complainant-Vikas Kumar. Said orders dated 23.12.2022 passed by the District Commission in all the complaints have been challenged by the appellant/OP No.3 before this Commission by way of filing the separate Appeals bearing No.185 of 2023 to 194 of 2023.
10. Appeals were admitted and notices were issued to respondents No.1 and 2 in all the appeals as well in the application for grant of interim stay. However, notice was not issued to respondent No.3/OP No.2 as complaint was dismissed as withdrawn against that respondent. Inspite of service none had appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2. A direction was issued by this Commission to the executing Court to adjourn the execution application beyond the date given by this Commission.
11. Mr. Y. D. Sharma Advocate, learned counsel representing the appellant/OP No.3 has vehemently argued that the summons were issued by the District Commission to the appellant/OP No.3 but it was never received and OPs No.1 and 3 were proceeded exparte.

However the complaint was withdrawn by the complainant against OP No.2 vide order dated 21.12.2022. Learned counsel has further submitted that the District Commission has not considered that the appellant was not necessary party in the complaint as no invoice was issued by him and the product was not purchased directly from the First Appeal No.185 of 2023 12 appellant/OP No.3. OPs No.1 and 2 were necessary parties in the cases as the invoice was issued by OP No.2 and even the product was also supplied by him and as such it was necessary party but still the complaint was withdrawn qua to him. The complaint was intentionally withdrawn against OP No.2 by respondent No.1/complainant as such the complaint was not maintainable. The complainant is an Advocate by profession and he had intentionally purchased the 10 items i.e. Lotus Makeup Red Sindoor but with different invoices/bills. It was done intentionally and knowingly just to increase the number of complaints. Learned counsel also submits that the complainant is not a consumer as 10 products were purchased by him for commercial use/resale and not for his personal use as such the complainant was not entitled for any benefit/concession as available under the C.P. Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that in case the respondent No.1/complainant was not satisfied with the value or quality of the product, he was having option to get order cancelled or to return the items but nothing was done which clearly shows that the complaints were filed with the ulterior motive for taking undue advantage by misusing the process of law. Learned counsel has further submitted that the complainant is a habitual complainant and had filed a number of cases as he filed as many as total 9 similar cases in the year 2019 and thereafter 26 similar cases in the year 2020 and also 65 similar cases in the year 2021. The purpose for filing such number of cases was just to extort money from the companies. Some of the case had been withdrawn subsequently and as such it was a case of misuse of process of law for extortion of money which First Appeal No.185 of 2023 13 was not permissible under the Act. Learned counsel has further submitted that respondent No.1/complainant had filed as many as total 35 cases before the District Commission, Bathinda and all the cases were dismissed in limine even without issuing notices. A detailed order was passed by mentioning that identical facts were mentioned in all the cases and the same were filed with ulterior motive. It was also mentioned that he had been filing frivolous complaints and that too before the District Consumer Commission where no Court fee was required to be paid. Learned counsel has prayed for setting aside the impugned order dated 23.12.2023 passed by the District Commission.

12. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1/complainant and respondent No.2/OP No.1 despite service.

13. I have carefully perused the contents of the complaint as well as the order passed by the District Commission and also the relevant documents available on the file.

14. On perusal of contents of complaint, it is apparent that the respondent No.1/complainant had purchased 10 products of Lotus Makeup Red Sindoor through online mode and had paid consideration amount of Rs.113/-. The complainant had placed on record screenshot of offer price (Ex.C-1). Meaning thereby, the OPs had first offered the price of the said product at Rs.113/- and after going through the offer, the complainant had agreed to purchase the said product i.e. Lotus Makeup Red Sindoor at the price of Rs.113/- and had paid the same to the OPs through online mode. It is relevant to mention that as per screenshot Ex.C-1, the OPs had offered the First Appeal No.185 of 2023 14 product at bargain price i.e. Rs.113/-. The payable amount has been shown in the screenshot Ex.C-1 as Rs.113/- and the complainant had purchased the same by paying Rs.113/-.

15. The complainant had pleaded in para 5 of his complaint that in connivance with each other, the OPs charged IGST amount of Rs.6/- which was more than MRP. It is pertinent to mention that the MRP of product was Rs.135/- as is clear from bill Ex.C-2 but the OPs had received only bargaining price i.e. Rs.113/-. As such the complainant had failed to prove that OPs had received Rs.6/- which was above the MRP i.e. Rs.135/-. It is also relevant to mention here that the offered price/amount payable in the screenshot Ex.C-1 was Rs.113/- and the amount paid as per the bill Ex.C-2 it was also Rs.113/-. In view of above discussion, it is apparent that offered/bargaining price and billing amount and paid up amount was the same i.e. Rs.113/-, whereas the MRP of the product was Rs.135/-. The complainant had failed to produce on record any document/screenshot whereby the OPs had offered price or payable amount of the product was Rs.107/-. As such the complainant had failed to prove on record the factum of 'deficiency in service' and 'unfair trade practice' on the part of the OPs by way of leading any cogent evidence in support of his contention. The onus to substantiate the factum of 'deficiency in service' committed by the opposite party was primarily on the complainant as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case titled as "Indigo Airlines vs. Kalpana Rani Debbarma & Ors" (2020) 9 SCC 424. The relevant para 16 of the judgment is reproduced as under:-

First Appeal No.185 of 2023 15

"16. In our opinion, the approach of the consumer fora is in complete disregard of the principles of pleadings and burden of proof. First, the material facts constituting deficiency in service are blissfully absent in the complaint as filed. Second, the initial onus to substantiate the factum of deficiency in service committed by the groundstaff of the Airlines at the airport after issuing boarding passes was primarily on the respondents. That has not been discharged by them. The consumer fora, however, went on to unjustly shift the onus on the appellants because of their failure to produce any evidence. In law, the burden of proof would shift on the appellants only after the respondents/complainants had discharged their initial burden in establishing the factum of deficiency in service."

16. Learned counsel for the appellant has also brought to our notice that the complainant had filed a number of cases i.e. 9 similar cases in the year 2019 and thereafter 26 similar cases in the year 2020 and also 65 similar cases in the year 2021 before the District Commission Bathinda. He has further brought to our notice that the District Commission Bathinda had dismissed the total 35 cases filed by the same complainant Vikas Kumar of the same nature on 21.12.2021. The relevant portion of one of the orders passed by the District Commission, Bathinda on 21.12.2021 in Consumer Complaint No.335 of 2021 is reproduced as under:-

It has come to our notice from the cause list of today that there are 35 cases of same nature listed for preliminary proceedings, filed by this complainant. On further enquiry, it has further come to our notice that earlier too, a number of cases of same nature were filed by present complainant and other Advocates. Most of the cases were/are dismissed as withdrawn. A number of cases having identical facts being filed by present complainant are also still pending in this Commission. It appears that this type of litigation is manipulated and created one and being filed with ulterior motive. It First Appeal No.185 of 2023 16 has also come to our notice that some people well versed with law of land purchase online, small items/articles in bulk and file various cases in appropriate Commissions/Foras and this practice is going on for the last so many years. This type of litigation consumes precious time of redressal agencies i.e. Commission in these cases and also put huge financial burden on this Commission. Since the Commission has to spend a huge amount of money to purchase postal stamps for R.C to effect service upon oppoiste parties. It is also pertinent to mention here that in these type of cases, no court fee is required, which also promotes this type of litigation. The time and resources of this Commission are not allowed to be wasted, in such manner and for such purposes.

In these cases, complainant purchased a large number of same articles vide different invoices/bill i.e. one item vide one bill intentionally and knowingly just to increase number of complaints to be filed. The complainant could have purchased more than one articles by one order. Moreover it is not the case of the complainant that opposite parties have charged over and above M.R.P. The complainant has alleged that he has been charged extra I.G.S.T. It cannot be said that I.G.S.T was charged from him without his knowledge and is an unfair trade practice, as the tax charged from the him is deposited with Government of India. Moreover if he was not satisfied with the value of product, he had an option to get the order cancelled or to return the item, but he had not chosen to do so, which shows that he goes forward just to file complaints and take undue advantage by misusing the process of law.

The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble State Commission, Chandigarh in case Gagandeep Goel Vs. M/s First Cry and Other, First Appeal No.115 of 2021, Decided on 13.7.2021.

Further the support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon'ble National Commission, New Delhi in case Bajee Govindan Vs. P. Santhosh Kumar, Decided on 18.4.2019 in which it is held that "Consumer Protection Fora is not meant to be a tool to create 'nuisance value' or to indulge in vexatious harassment through frivolous complaints."

In view of, as discussed above, this complaint is not to be proceeded further since it appears not to be bonafide. Accordingly, the complaint is dismissed in limine without any order as to costs but with advise of caution to the complainant to desist from misusing the statutory processes provided for a consumer for protection of his interests under the 'Act'. First Appeal No.185 of 2023 17 Neither the respondent No.1/complainant had himself appeared before this Commission despite service nor he had sent any written argument by post by denying the version of the appellant. Since the complainant Vikas Kumar had not challenged the said order dated 21.12.2021 passed by the District Commission before this Commission. An adverse inference is drawn against the complainant Vikas Kumar that he was satisfied with the order passed by the District Commission.

17. The District Commission Bathinda has partly allowed the complaints by passing the orders which are under challenge in all these appeals without taking into consideration the earlier orders dated 21.12.2021 passed against the same complainant and the District Commission has also not applied its mind while passing the different orders in the similar complaints and that too with the same allegations filed by the same complainant. It appears that while dealing with the similar type of cases, the earlier orders passed by the same District Commission, Bathinda comprising same President and Member have not been taken into consideration and the orders passed on different dates i.e. on 21.12.2021 and on 23.12.2022. Both the orders are contradictory to each other.

18. Moreover, the complainant himself is an Advocate by profession and relating to the legal profession, he was keenly interested in purchasing the similar items which were neither meant for the advocates nor even for males. Although there is no such bar for the customers to purchase a number of items through online mode but in case of any dispute, purchasing similar items against different bills First Appeal No.185 of 2023 18 appears to be something unusual. But no such purpose of purchasing those items has been mentioned in the complaint by the complainant as to whether such products were required to be used for his personal use or for any commercial purpose. The reason of purchasing the same product vide different bills has also not been disclosed in the complaint. It is also relevant to mention here that the legal profession is a noble and the Advocate being the most privileged and well- educated person of the society and his act is considered a role model for the society. The credibility and reputation of the profession depends upon the individual as to how the members of the profession conduct themselves in the legal field.

19. In the present case, the complainant Vikas Kumar had alleged that he had sent the complaint regarding charging of extra IGST through e-mail but no copy of such email has been placed on record before the District Commission. He has further alleged that he had also made call to the OPs, but no call details or screenshot of the calls have been placed on record. The District Commission has ignored these aspects of the case and had not considered while passing the orders under challenge.

20. In view of above facts and circumstances and the reasons, it appears that the items were purchased by the respondent No.1/complainant for some ulterior motive vide different bills/invoices whereas he could have purchased the said items in one go. The filing of a number of complaints with the same grievance is totally a case of misuse of process of law.

First Appeal No.185 of 2023 19

21. Accordingly, I find merit in the contentions raised by learned counsel for the appellant. As such First Appeal No.185 of 2023 is allowed and the impugned order dated 23.12.2022 passed by the District Commission is set aside. The complaint filed by the complainant stands dismissed.

First Appeals No.186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193 and 194 of 2023

22. These appeals filed by the appellant-M/s Lotus Herbals Private Limited are allowed in the same terms of order as passed in First Appeal No.185 of 2023.

23. The appellant/OP No.3 had deposited an amount Rs.1500/- at the time of filing in each appeal i.e. bearing No.185 of 2023 to 194 of 2023 with this Commission. Said amount, along with interest which has accrued thereon, if any, shall be remitted by the Registry to the appellant/OP No.3 by way of cheque/demand draft in accordance with law in all the appeals No.185 of 2023 to 194 of 2023.

24. Since the main cases are decided, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.

25. The appeals could not be decided within the stipulated period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.





                                       (JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY)
August 14, 2023                                 PRESIDENT
MM