Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs Mr. Lohith Shetty on 2 February, 2022

                                   1
                                                  APPEAL No.1089/2021



                                           Date of Filing :18.12.2021
                                         Date of Disposal :02.02.2022

      BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
     REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BENGALURU (PRINCIPAL BENCH)
                         DATED:02.02.2022
                              PRESENT

     HON'BLE Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

          Mr K B SANGANNANAVAR: JUDICIAL MEMBER

               Mrs DIVYASHREE M:LADY MEMBER

                       APPEAL No 1089/2021
M/s Vihaan Direct Selling (India) Private Ltd.,
Through its Authorised Representative
MrManjunath N
Office at Regus Centre
Ground Floor
E1 Block Manyata
Embasy Business Park
Outer Ring Road
Bengaluru - 560 045                                 Appellant

                                   -Versus-

Mr Lohit Shetty
Aged about 42 years
Residing at Thamagna Nilaya Besant
1st Lane, Kodialbail
Mangaluru-575 003
Dakshina Kannada District                           Respondent

                               :ORDER:

Mr JUSTICE HULUVADI G RAMESH : PRESIDENT

1. This Appeal is filed under Section 41 of Consumer Protection Act 2019 by OP, aggrieved by the Order dated 17.10.2019 passed in Consumer Complaint No.73/2018 by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District (for short the District Forum).

2. Heard the arguments of the Appellant. Perused the impugned Order & Records. According to Complainant, OP has promised to send luxury products upon his becoming member of said Q Net Company and was referred by one Ms Prinyanka Babu Naidu and accordingly in the month of Sep 2017 became a Member of the Multi Level Marketing Company operating in the name of Q-Net and paid a sum of Rs.1,85,000/- on different dates through NEFT to the Account of one MrKiran T P. Thereafter, OP sent some records, revealing photographs of luxury items to Complainant, but did not issued ID Card despite being in receipt of amount of Rs.1,85,000/-. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of OP, filed the instant Complaint seeking directions for the refund of the amount. On the contrary, OP denied the payment of Rs.1,85,000/- from the Complainant and that he is not aware of any purchase made by him. The alleged money in question is paid to one MrKiran TPis not within his knowledge and that he only registered with the OP to become an Independent Representative of OP.

3. The District Forum after enquiring into the matter recorded affirmative findings with an observation that documents produced by the Complainant clearly goes to show that there is an existing relationship between the parties and for the reasons best known to the OP only, not delivered any materials despite receipt of payment. Thus, OP has committed deficiency in service & Unfair Trade Practice, as he has received the payment on 3 occasions through one Mr Kiran T P and so also replied to the e-mail correspondences and that he will investigate the matter. Further, he has not produced any cogent evidence to show that Complainant is not the member of OP, per contra, since complainant has received some photographs & information in connection with Ida card of Q-Net which corroborates the relationship with the complainant. In the circumstances, there 2 3 APPEAL No.1089/2021 are no strong reasons to interfere with the Impugned Order directing OP to pay Rs.1,85,000/- with interest at 9% p.a from 02.09.2017 till realisation, Rs.30,000/- as compensation and Rs.5,000/- towards costs of the litigation to the Complainant is just & proper.

4. Further, on perusal of the Order Sheets, it is seen that the Office has pointed out that there is a delay of 763 days in preferring the Appeal. At the time of filing of Application for Condonation of Delay, it is for the Appellant to explain as to what & how he was prevented from in not filing the Appeal in time. The delay of 763 days in preferring the appeal is an enormous one. The reasons assigned in the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application are purely administrative in nature. Time and again it is held that administrative delay & administrative lapses cannot be termed as sufficient reasons. For these reasons, we are of the considered opinion that the Appellant has not at all explained the reasons for delay in filing the present Appeal. Hence, delay is fatal to the Appeal.

5. In view of the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission reported in 2018 (2) CPR 507 (NC) the matter between M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd., Vs Kulvinder Singh Bahl and also in 2019 (1) CPR 5 (NC) in the case of Care Hospital, Nagpur Vs Naresh Gopalakrishna Vyas & others, it was held that the Appeal can be dismissed on the point of delay alone. In view of the same, this Appeal also requires to be Dismissed In view of above observation, Appeal is Dismissed.

Amount in deposit is ordered to be transferred to the District Commission for disbursement to the Complainant. Send a copy of 3 4 APPEAL No.1089/2021 this Order to the District Commission as well as to the parties concerned, immediately.

Lady Member               Judicial Member         President

*s




                                 4