Punjab

Sangrur

CC/341/2016

Tanvir Singh - Complainant(s)

Versus

Domino's pizza - Opp.Party(s)

Shri Sandip Kumar Goyal

02 Nov 2016

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR.

                                        

                                                Complaint No.  341

                                                Instituted on:    01.04.2016

                                                Decided on:       02.11.2016

 

Tanvir Singh son of Harpreet Singh R/O VPO Gowara, Tehsil Malerkotla, Distt. Sangrur.

                                                        …Complainant

                                Versus

1.Domino’s Pizza Ground Floor, CL Tower, Nankiana Chowk, Sangrur, District Sangrur through its Manager.

2.Domino’s Pizza, Regional Office 3^rd and 4^th floor, Prama 11-A, East Topsia Road, Beside Marina Boarding Complex, Topsia, Kolkata, West Bengal 700046 through its MD.

3.Coca Cola Co. Enkay Tower, Industrial Area, Udyog Vihar, Phase-5, Gurgaon, Haryana 122001 through its MD.

                                                        ..Opposite parties

For the complainant  :       Shri Sandeep Goyal, Adv.

For OP No.3             :       Shri Ashok Mahajan, Adv.

For OP No.1&2         :       Exparte.

       

 

Quorum:   Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

                Sarita Garg, Member

 

Order by : Sukhpal Singh Gill, President.

 

1.             Shri Tanvir Singh, complainant (referred to as complainant in short) has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that  the Op number 1 granted a copy of the coupons to the complainant bearing offer buy 1 pizza and get one pizza free, which were valid till 30.11.2015.  Further case of the complainant is that on 23.11.2015, the complainant along with his friends Satgur Singh, Amrinder Singh, Rahul Garg and Dharampal Singh went to the OP number 1 and placed the order of ‘1 medium farmhouse and 1 coke cold drink  and show them the coupon bearing offer buy 1 pizza and get 1 pizza free, but the receptionist authority told the complainant that by this coupon only a smaller quantity of pizza can be given free and the OP number 1 gave one regular pizza free as mentioned in the bill, despite the fact the coupon was shown.  Further grievance of the complainant is that the price of the cold drink is too high for the quantity i.e. 500 ML of cold drink and the OP charged Rs.55/-, whereas the market price of the same is Rs.30/- only.  As such, the complainant requested the Op for refund of the excess amount, but nothing happened. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OPs, the complainant has prayed that the OPs be directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs.70,000/- on account of mental agony, torture and harassment and Rs.22,000/- on account of litigation expenses.

 

2.             In reply filed by the OP number 1 and 2, preliminary objections are taken up on the grounds that the present complaint is not maintainable, that the complainant is not a consumer, that declaring different MRPs for similar goods to be sold from different channels at different locations in the same state is permissible under law and does not constitute unfair trade practice.  On merits, it is denied that the Op number 1 granted a copy of coupons to the complainant bearing buy l and get 1 pizza free or that these coupons were valid till 30.11.2015. The complainant has failed to explain as to by which source he got the coupons.  Moreover, it is pertinent to mention here that the complainant has misinterpreted the offer as given in the coupon as it has been clearly written that “Buy a large/medium pizza and get another pizza of same or lesser category absolutely free”, which means that if you are buying a pizza of any category then the next pizza of that category or the lesser category is to be given free.   Further it is stated that the complainant alone on 23.11.2015 bought  a pizza i.e. 1 medium farm house and 1 coke cold drink from OP number 1 and he provided the coupon, as such at the same time, he was made aware that the pizza of same category or lesser category will be given free, as per the choice of the complainant himself, a regular pizza of same category i.e. Mexican Green Wave was provided free of cost.   Further the allegations levelled by the complainant have been denied regarding the excess charging of coca cola price.  The prices are always on display of each and everything and the complainant after understanding all has ordered for Rs.55/- coke which is duly incorporated in the bill also.   However, any deficiency in service on the part of the OPs has been denied. Further record shows that the OP number 1 and 2 were proceeded exparte on 18.08.2016.

 

3.             In reply filed by OP number 3,  it is stated that the complaint is bad for misjoinder of the parties and that the complainant is attempting to make roving and fishing enquiries to find out an opposite party against whom the complainant could

seek relief and that the complainant did not produce the coke cold drink bottle before the Forum, which adequately demonstrates that the complainant simply wants to harass the OP number 3 and that the OP number 3 does not manufacture or distribute any beverage under the brand name of Coca Cola, Lima, Fanta etc. within the Sangrur regional, therefore, the OP number 3 is not a necessary and proper party.  The other allegations levelled in the complaint have been denied.

 

4.             The learned counsel for the complainant has produced Ex.C-1 and Ex.C-2 affidavits, Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 copies of bills, Ex.C-5 copy of coupon and closed evidence.  On the other hand the learned counsel for the OP number 3 has produced Ex.Op3/1 affidavit, Ex.Op3/2 copy of power of attorney, Ex.OP3/3 copy of authority letter, Ex.OP3/4 copy of power of attorney and closed evidence.

 
5.             We have carefully perused the complaint, written version of the opposite parties, evidence of the parties and heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. In our opinion, the complaint merits dismissal, for these reasons.

 

6.             After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties as well as of the perusal of the file, we find that the complainant has claimed compensation of Rs.70,000/- from the Ops on account of supply of free pizza of the lesser category, which was supplied with the coupon which bears the slogan i.e. “buy large/medium pizza and get another pizza of same or lesser category absolutely free”. To support such a contention, the complainant has also produced on record the copy of coupon as Ex.C-5 and further the affidavit of the complainant Ex.C-2 and another affidavit Ex.C-1 of one Rahul Garg.  On the other hand, the stand of the OP is that the complainant was supplied the same pizza as demanded by him.  It is further contended in the reply that the complainant himself demanded the desired Pizza and the same was supplied accordingly.     We have also perused the copy of coupon Ex.C-5, which clearly shows that if one buys a large/medium pizza and then get another pizza of same or lesser category absolutely free.  There is nothing on record to show that what was the Pizza demanded by the complainant from OP number 1 and then the same was not supplied to him.  No such complaint has neither been lodged by the complainant nor the same has been produced on the file which was raised/lodged by the complainant against the OPs.  Moreover, the alleged purchase was made on 30.11.2015, but the present complaint has been filed on 1.4.2016 after a period of about four months.   Now, coming to the point of the excess charging of Coke by the OP number 1 from the complainant, whereas its price was less than Rs.55/-. We may mention that the complainant has not produced on record the bottle of Coke to show his contention that any excess charging was there from the complainant. There is no explanation from the side of the complainant that why he did not produce the same.   Further the learned counsel for OP number 3 has contended vehemently that the OP number 3 does not manufacture or distribute any beverage under the brand name of Coca Cola, Limca, Fanta etc. within the Sangrur Region.  But, the complainant has again failed to support his contention by producing cogent, reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the Op number 3 is doing the business in the Sangrur region.  In the circumstances of the case, we feel that the complainant has miserably failed to establish his case before this Forum by leading supporting evidence to his case.

 

7.             So, in view of our above discussion, we dismiss the complaint of the complainant, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. A copy of this order be issued to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to records.

                Pronounced.

                November 2, 2016.

                                                        (Sukhpal Singh Gill)

                                                           President

 

 

                                                                (Sarita Garg)

                                                                    Member