FIRST ADDITIONAL BENCH STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB, CHANDIGARH.

Date of institution : 28.09.2025 Date of Decision : 14.01.2026 Kumar Gaurav S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar, R/o 109, Rose Avenue, Kapurthala. ….Appellant Versus

1. Meta Platform Inc. situated at DLF Cyber City, at Unit 28 and 29 Level 18, Building No.5, Tower A, Phase II, Gurgaon, Haryana through its Authorised Signatory.

2. Meta Platform Inc. Legal Department, 1601, Willow Road, Menlo Park, 94025 USA through its Authorised Signatory.

....Respondents First Appeal under Section 41 of the C.P. Act, 2019 against the judgment dated 17.09.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,Kapurthala.

Quorum:-

Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member Present:-

For the appellant : Sh. Saksham Khunger, Advocate with Sh. Kumar Gaurav, In person For respondents : Sh. Ankit Kharbanda, Advocate Mrs. Kiran Sibal, Presiding Member The present appeal has been filed against the order dated

17.09.2025 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kapurthala (in short the District Commission”), whereby the District Commission has dismissed the complaint of the complainant, in limine on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to entertain the same. The learned counsel for the appellant/complainant has submitted that while dismissing the complaint, the District Commission has granted liberty to the complainant to file his grievance in competent court of law, as such, he also filed a civil suit against the respondents/OPs before the Civil Court, after filing the present appeal. However, subsequently he has withdrawn the same, which would not cause any prejudice to either of the parties. The learned counsel has further submitted the District Commission has dismissed the complaint without attaching any cogent reasons and merely by stating that the complaint against the respondents was not in the scope of the District Commission, which is not justified.

2. Heard.

3. It is pertinent to mention here that the appellant/complainant has specifically stated in his complaint that he had been availing the services of the OPs by paying consideration i.e. Rs.639/- per ID per month, totaling Rs.5751/- per month for his nine IDs. He further stated that he has been earning his livelihood through the said IDs and the amount was being paid by his followers for their carrier guidance, consultation, resume and cover letter etc. In the backdrop of these facts, I am of the view that the District Commission has dismissed the complaint of the complainant in limine, without even issuing notice to the respondents/OPs. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case “Punj Lloyd Limited Vs. Corporate Risks India Pvt. Ltd.”, 2009 CTJ (Supreme Court) (CP), wherein it has been observed as under:-

“15. Following the aforesaid observations of this Court as quoted hereinabove, in the aforesaid decision of CCI Chamber’s case (Supra) and also the observations in Dr. JJ Merhant’s Case (Supra) which have been noted hereinabove, we are of the view that the decision arrived at by the Commission is premature. The Commission ought to have issued notice to the respondent and placed the pleadings on record. When pleadings of both the parties were made available before the Commission, only then the Commission should have formed an opinion as to the nature and scope of enquiry, i.e. whether the facts which arose for decision on the basis of the pleadings of the parties required a detailed and complicated investigation of facts which was incapable of being undertaken in a summary and speedy manner, then only the Commission should have justifiably formed an opinion on the need of relegating the complaint to a Civil Court. That apart, in view of the admitted fact that the respondent was never served with any notice and not present before the Commission, therefore, it was not known to the Commission, what would be the defence and contentions of the respondent and what quest