Chandigarh

DF-II

CC/62/2014

Arvind Sehdev - Complainant(s)

Versus

Barista Coffee Company Limited - Opp.Party(s)

Comp. in person

12 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, U.T. CHANDIGARH

======

Consumer Complaint  No	:	62 of 2014
Date  of  Institution	:	04.02.2014
Date   of   Decision	:	12.08.2015

 

 

 

 

 

Arvind Sechdev, Advocate s/o Mr.Vijay Sehdev, Office: Lawyers’ Chamber No.484, District Court, Sector 43, Chandigarh.

             …..Complainant

 

Versus

 

1]  Barista Coffee Company Limited, F1/9, First Floor, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi 110020, India (Through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory)

 

2]  Barista Coffee Company Limited, SCO No.421-422, Sector 35-C, Chandigarh 160036 (Through its Managing Director/Authorised Signatory)

 

….. Opposite Parties

 

BEFORE:  SH.RAJAN DEWAN              PRESIDENT

         SH.JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU       MEMBER

         MRS.PRITI MALHOTRA             MEMBER

 

Argued By:  Complainant in person.

Sh.J.S.Dhaliwal, Counsel for the OPs

 

 

PER JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU , MEMBER

 

          As per the case of the complainant, he was a regular customer of Opposite Party No.2. That Opposite Party No.1 came out with a promotion of giving points on every purchase, which can be redeemed for their value and the same has been opted by the complainant.  It is averred that one day, the complainant, who had 93 points to his credit, ordered a coffee amounting to Rs.92/- and when he asked the Opposite Party No.2 to redeem his points, he was told that now these points can be redeemed when they are more than 100.  After few days, when the complainant had 113 points and had a cup of coffee, on being asked to redeem the points, the Opposite Party NO.2 told that the machine is not deducting the points and when complainant objected, the Incharge of Opposite Party No.2 told that the complainant that now he needs minimum 200 points to redeem them, to which complainant objected, whereas Opposite Party No.2 insisted on making payment in cash, to which complainant refused and asked him to redeem the points earned by him. It is also averred that the incharge of Opposite Party No.2 also behaved in a very rude manner. It is further averred that the Incharge of Opposite Party No.2 also insulted the complainant in front of other visitors and told him that he is banned there. It is pleaded that the complainant also brought this matter to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 through e-mails (Ann.C-3 to C-12), but to no avail. Thereafter, the complainant also sent a legal notice to the Opposite Parties demanding a complete refund of the amount paid to the OPs in lieu of the points which the complainant was not allowed to redeem due to OPs disguised means and tactics, but no action was taken thereon.  Hence, this complaint has been filed. 

2]       The Opposite Parties have filed joint reply and denied most of the allegations of the complainant.  It is stated that the promotional scheme under the name of “Bean ‘o’ Holic” was made available to each and every customer visiting the store/outlet of the answering OPs subject to terms & conditions of the scheme and it was not confined to any specific category of loyal customers.  It is also stated that since the complainant himself has admitted that the scheme is an additional free complementary benefits therefore he does not qualify to be a consumer for any such benefit hence, the complaint is not maintainable.  The allegations of the complainant with regard to the behavior of Incharge of Opposite Party NO.2 have been denied.  It is pleaded that the promotional scheme was free of cost, additional complementary benefits subjected to revisions purely at the discretion of answering Opposite Party and governed by terms & conditions of the scheme, which could be revised at any point of time (Ann.A).  It is also pleaded that the complainant used bad language with the staff of Opposite Party, which itself indicates towards rude, rigid, arrogant conduct of the complainant.  It is asserted that if any customer is intending to avail any offer then the customer is required to inform in advance at the time of placing order about willingness to avail benefit of such offer, which has not been done by the complainant in the present case.  It is also asserted that the complainant used to take undue advantage of his being stated to be regular and moreover of his status of an Advocate and under the guise of these, he used to by-pass and violate the procedure and business practice of answering OPs. Rest of the allegations have been denied with a prayer to dismiss the complaint with cost.

3]       Parties les evidence in support of their contentions.

4]       We have heard the complainant in person, ld.Counsel for the OPs and have also perused the record.

5]       The complainant, who has claimed that he was the regular and almost a daily customer of Opposite Party NO.2 for the past 10 years and being a loyal and dedicated customer, he had availed the facility of loyalty card programme named as Barista Lavazza ‘Bean ‘o’ Holic’ loyalty programme membership, through which on his each purchase, a few points were generated in his membership card and the same could be redeemed in terms of rupees in future purchases.  The complainant has been regularly redeeming his points in his bills, when on one such occasion, when he had 93 points to his credit, the Opposite Party refused to redeem the same against a bill of coffee of Rs.92/- and he was informed that he can only avail such benefit once his points are above 100.  Though the complainant objected, but instead prefer to pay the same. However, on 24.12.2013, when the complainant had 105.32 points to his credit, asked the Opposite Party to redeem the same against his fresh bill, which was again denied by claiming that now he had to have 200 points to his credit for such reduction.  After this purchase, the total balance to his credit was 113.22 points. A copy of the receipt is annexed as Ann.C-1.  The complainant claims that while refusing, his entitled credit points, the manager of the Opposite Party even scribbled the complainant’s name while refusing to redeem his credit points.  The complainant though demanded that as to when such condition of limiting or increase in the limit of redemption of point was effected, no satisfactory answer came from the side of Opposite Party No.2, thus giving rise to the dispute between them.  The complainant has preferred the present complaint on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs seeking the quoted relief. 

6]       The Opposite Parties have contested the claim of the complainant citing the reasons that the complainant, who though was a regular customer, at Opposite Party No.2 outlet, but at the same time, had been taking undue advantage of himself being an advocate and use their premises in order to enhance his professional interest and inviting his customers and using their infrastructure. OPs have also alleged that the complainant at times raised frivolous objections with regard to the service and also the quality of crockery used by them.  While dealing with the issue with regard to the not honouring the credit points of the complainant, it is claimed that the same was refused, as per the company policy and also that the complainant instead of declaring his credits before placing an order, always tried to bye-pass the system of the Opposite Parties while claiming the credits so generated against his bills.  It was on account of his such a practice that on a given day, his points could not be redeemed once the bill was already generated and also that due to the non-functioning of their machine, a similar situation has arisen, causing a bad blood between the parties. Denying all allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice eon their part, the OPs have prayed for dismissal of the complaint against them.

7]       We have perused the documents placed on record by the parties and are of the opinion that the complainant was certainly a regular customer of Opposite Parties and also that he has been earning credit points on his ‘Bean ‘o’ Holic’ loyalty programme and redeeming the same against his future purchases while generating more points on each of his such purchases.  The OPs too have admitted that the complainant was their regular customer and was enjoying the loyalty programme offered by them.  However, the Opposite Parties have stood their ground that on a given date, when complainant demanded the redemption of his credit points, only 103 points were to his credit and also that the complainant did not informed the Opposite Party NO.2 that he wanted to redeem the same towards his current purchase, but raised this issue at the time of payment of the bill, which was refused as the Opposite Parties claims that any such redemption was to be intimated in advance at the time of placing of the order, which the complainant did not do. 

8]       It is necessary to add here that during the course of arguments, Opposite Parties have claimed that the complainant is not a consumer qua the Opposite Parties for the purpose of redemption of his credit points and that the complainant has not paid any consideration to the OPs for such a service.  We are not convinced with the arguments of the Opposite Parties and are of the view that by virtue of any such scheme, through which the Opposite Parties tries to keep its clientage to itself and taking away their right to bargain with its competitors, certainly amounts to an unfair trade practice if such offer is denied to its customer who had already earned such credit points on his past purchases. Therefore, the complainant being a beneficiary of the ‘Bean ‘o’ Holic’ loyalty programme was a consumer qua them and denial of such redemption in an illegal manner or contrary to their offer, would also amounts to deficiency in service.     

9]       As with regard to the claim of the complainant about minimum 200 credit points for necessary redemption, the Opposite Parties have claimed that the same was a system’s generated offer because of pre-programmed billing machine and there was no control of Opposite Party No.2 on such function of machine and minimum score of 200 credit points was as per prevailing company policy, which was beyond the control of Opposite Party NO.2.  The Opposite Parties have placed on record Ann.A in support of their such claim. 

10]      On perusal of Ann.A, it is revealed that all the registered loyal or gift card programme individuals, who had opted in such a programme, were required to use their mobile number for updating, his individual account activity, status of his card, its expiry date and other promotional updates for individual’s benefit, which was to be conveyed via SMS to each such registered individual. The complainant being the beneficiary of this service, was certainly entitled for a regular update, as and when, it became due.  However, there is no evidence from the side of the Opposite Parties to prove their pleadings with regard to a new company instructions for raising the limit of redemption of credit points to 200 points and without giving any such information in advance to its registered customers, certainly amounted to deficiency in service on their part.  Ann.A placed on record by the Opposite Parties does not mention any minimum limit of redemption of points, leave aside the limit of 200 points. 

11]      The Opposite Parties have claimed that the entire complaint of the complainant is only the result of an argument that had happened between the complainant and one of their employee and the same is more on account of frustration and hurt ego of the complainant and there is no issue with regard to deficiency in service on their part. We feel that the Opposite Parties having admitted that there was an argument, on some petty issue between the complainant and one of their employee, is only indicative of a dis-courteous service of the OPs, which is also in a manner a deficiency in service.  

12]      The Opposite Parties have also tried to confuse the matter by claiming that the complainant had been bye-passing their system and have been claiming the credit of points after the bill was generated, whereas he was supposed to declare his credits before placing order for any purchase.  The Opposite Parties have not placed on record any document to convince us that such a practice was necessary and the complainant being aware of it did not follow the procedure. There is only one single bill from the side of the OPs which has been placed on record by the complainant and the Opposite Parties have not pointed out any such clause of Ann.A nor any bill or proof of Notice displaced at their outlet from where its prospective customers could know that they were duty bound to declare their credit points in advance while placing order with them. Therefore, in the absence of any cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence from the side of the Opposite Parties, to prove their pleadings and also while contesting the claim of the complainant, the present complaint deserves to succeed against them.

 

13]      In the light of above observations, we are of the concerted view that the Opposite Parties are found deficient in rendering proper service to the complainant as well as indulged into unfair trade practice. Hence, the present complaint of the Complainant is allowed qua OPs. The Opposite parties are jointly & severally directed to pay an amount of Rs.12,000/- to the complainant as consolidated amount of compensation for causing mental agony and harassment on account of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.

 

         The above said order shall be complied within 45 days of its receipt by the Opposite Parties; thereafter, they shall be liable to pay an interest @18% per annum on the compensation amount of Rs.12,000/- from the date of filing of the complaint till it is paid.

 

         The certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of charge, after which the file be consigned.

Announced

12^th August, 2015                

                                                                             Sd/-

 (RAJAN DEWAN)

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(JASWINDER SINGH SIDHU)

MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

PRITI MALHOTRA

MEMBER

Om                                                                                                                        

 

 

DISTRICT FORUM – II

CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO.62 OF 2014

PRESENT:   None   Dated the 12th day of August, 2015

O R D E R                        Vide our detailed order of even date, recorded separately, the complaint has been allowed against Opposite Parties.                    After compliance, file be consigned to record room.

 

(Priti Malhotra)	(Rajan Dewan)	(Jaswinder Singh Sidhu)
Member	President	Member