DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No. 14 of 2015
Date of institution: 05.01.2015 Date of decision : 14.12.2016
V.K. Arora son of Late H.C.Arora, resident of 379, Sukhna Enclave, C Block, Kaimbwala Road, Kansal, District SAS Nagar (Mohali).
……..Complainant
Versus
1. A.P. Marketing, F-40-41, Mansorover Garden, Near Pani Ki Tanki, Jain Mandir Wali Gali, Delhi 110015.
2. Sahara Samay, T.V. Channel, Web Division, Dept. (SITV), Sahara India Complex, C-2,3,4 Sector 11, Noida (UP).
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 of
the Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum
Shri Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Shri Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member.
Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Shri S.S. Bawa, counsel for the complainant.
OP No.1 ex-parte.
Shri Ammish Goel, counsel for OP No.2.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
Complainant V.K. Arora son of Late H.C.Arora, resident of 379, Sukhna Enclave, C Block, Kaimbwala Road, Kansal, District SAS Nagar (Mohali) has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
2. The TV Channel of OP No.2 regularly telecasted advertisement for an item namely Dent Out (Dent and Ding Repair Kit). It was repeatedly advertised that by purchasing this product one can easily remove all dents on his car by just sticking and twisting on the area of dent of the car. Further one marker pen namely Scratch Out was also part of this product and it was told that the purchaser of the product through this pen can remove any scratch over the metal body of the car immediately by simply raising this marker over the body. Not only this, fake live demonstration was telecasted on the T.V. The complainant got impressed by the advertisement, called the given phone number and ordered for the product. The product was delivered at the address of the complainant on 30.07.2014 by taking Rs.2,240/- from the complainant. The complainant was shocked to see that the product was electrically operated which fact was not at all mentioned in the advertisement telecasted on the TV. The complainant also found that the product was totally different from the description shown in the advertisement. No bill was provided to the complainant at the time of delivery of the product on the ground that it will be sent by the company within 3-4 days. The complainant called OP No.1 on 31.07.2014 for making complaint of the product. On 04.08.2014 one lady Manager of OP No.1 called the complainant and told him that amount would not be refunded to him and threatened the complainant to approach any court in India against them. Hence this complaint for giving directions to OP No.2 to refund him Rs.2,240/- and to pay him Rs.20,000/- as compensation towards harassment and mental agony.
3. As per the report retrieved from the site of India post, notices sent to the OPs were delivered on them on 19.01.2015. None appeared for them and thus both the OPs were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 13.02.2015. However, OP No.2 preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Punjab and the order dated 13.02.2015 of this Forum was set aside vide order dated 04.01.2016. Accordingly, OP No.2 appeared before this Forum and filed reply by taking preliminary objections that M/s. Ansh Advertisement had taken contract/slot for commercial advertisements from OP No.2 vide proposal dated 03.01.2014. M/s. Ansh Advertisement had booked the advertisement of OP No.1 for telecasting the same on the channel of OP No.2. Therefore, there is no privity of contract between OP No.2 and OP No.1. This Forum does not have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint as the complainant had purchased the product from OP No.1 which has been running its business in Delhi and OP No.2 has also its office at Noida. The advertisement was given by OP No.1 through M/s. Ansh Marketing and it was broadcasted three times on 30.07.2014 with the disclaimer clause that the telecaster i.e. OP No.2 does not own any responsibility on account of advertisement given by a particular identity. Thus, filing of complaint against OP No.2 is an abuse of process of law. On merits, OP No.2 has denied the allegations of the complaint and sought its dismissal.
4. In order to prove the case, the complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex. CW-1/1; box Ex.C-1 containing product in question i.e. electric gun, plaster metal dent remover and scratch remover marker pen and photographs Ex.C-2 and C-3. In rebuttal OP No.2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Ravi Dutt Sharma, its Dy. Manager Marketing Ex.OP-2/1 and copy of agreement dated 03.01.2014 Ex.OP-2.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the present case is a classic example how these companies in connivance with the TV channels take the consumers on a ride fully exploiting them by showing misleading advertisements of their products and boasting the quality of the product whereas in actual these products are far below in quality than the contents mentioned in the advertisement. He stated that the procedure mentioned in handling the product is totally different than shown during the advertisement. He further stated that complainant booked the product on watching the advertisement and on receipt of the same found it totally different than what was shown on the TV. No literature was supplied to the complainant about how to use the product. It was also not shown in the advertisement that the product is to be operated through electricity. Learned counsel for the complainant has argued that the complaint be allowed and exemplary compensation be awarded to him besides refund of the price of product.
6. On the other hand learned counsel for the OP No.2 has submitted that it has no concern with the advertisement telecasted on its channel on 30.07.2014 as M/s. Ansh Advertisement had booked the advertisement of OP No.1 for telecasting on the channel of OP No.2 with the disclaimer clause that the telecaster does not own any responsibility on account of advertisement given by a particular identity. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP No.2 and complaint qua OP no.2 be dismissed.
7. After going through the pleadings, evidence and written arguments as well as oral submission of counsel for the parties, in our opinion it is established from document Ex.OP-2 that Ansh Advertising had entered into agreement with OP No.2 for broadcasting commercials of various companies/agencies. Clause-18 of Ex.OP-2 states that ‘broadcaster has not extended any guarantee with respect to levels of impression for any advertisement except where expressly stated in the release order.’ The advertisement was broadcasted by Ansh Advertising on the channel of OP No.2 on behalf of OP No.1. In view of Clause-18 of Ex.OP-2, OP No.2 cannot be held responsible for the misleading advertisement provided by OP no.1. Hence, complaint qua OP No.2 is dismissed.
8. With regard to OP No.1, it has failed to appear in this Forum despite due service. Non appearance of OP No.1 shows that it has nothing to offer on the allegations mentioned in the complaint. In support of his averments, the complainant has produced his duly sworn affidavit Ex.CW-1/1. The complainant has also produced before this Forum the product received from the OP No.1 and its photographs Ex.C-1 to C-3. Thus, we find that the OP No.1 has committed deficiency in service and unfair trade practice by releasing the misleading advertisement of its product without explaining its functions to the consumers.
9. Accordingly, we direct the OP No.1 to refund to the complainant the price of the product to the tune Rs.2,240/- (Rs.Two thousand two hundred forty only). We also find that the complainant is entitled to a lump sum compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on account of mental agony and harassment and litigation cost. The present complaint stands allowed accordingly against OP No.1. The complaint against OP No.2 is dismissed.
The OP No.1 is further directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 05.12.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 14.12.2016
(A.P.S.Rajput)
President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
