Punjab

Sangrur

CC/146/2017

Alok Kumar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Easyday - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Ramit Pathak

18 Jul 2017

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 146                                                                                                

                                                                   Instituted on:  07.04.2017

                                                                   Decided on:    18.07.2017

 

Alok Kumar Prajapati son of Radhey Shyam  Prajapati, resident of Q No.T-10 Railway Colony, Sangrur.

                                                …. Complainant.      

Versus

 

1.       Esay Day, Future Retail Limited, Shop No.573/B-2/573A, Mittal Hospital Sunami Gate, Sangrur through its Manager.

2.       Easy Day, Future Retail Limited, Upper Ground Floor, CL Tower, Nankiana Chowk, Sangrur through Manager.

3.       Easy Day, Future Group, Head Office, Orchid Center, Ist Floor, Golf Course Road, Sector 53, Gurgaon, Haryana through its MD/Chairman/ Partner/ Authorized Signatory.   

                                                  ....Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:        Shri Ramit Pathak, Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES  :                Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Adv.          

 

 

Quorum

         

                    Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg, Member

Vinod Kumar Gulati, Member

     

           

 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

 

1.             Alok Kumar Prajapati complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that he had become a member of the scheme launched by the OP namely Easyday Savings Club wherein he could get many benefits on every purchase from  any of the outlet of Easyday after paying an amount of Rs.999/- to the OP one time and a card  was issued to him.  On 12.01.2017  he went to OP no.1 to purchase some items. At the time of billing the complainant showed his saving card for getting discount but the persons standing at billing counter refused to accept the card  and told that the card is not applicable  to their store  and the complainant had to make payment in full in spite of  having shown the saving card at the billing counter.  Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OP be directed to give discount of 10% on the entire transaction, as per the saving card on the purchase made by the complainant from OP no.1 on 12.01.2017,

ii)     OP be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.75000/- on account of unfair trade practice,

iii)  OP be directed to pay Rs.11000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the Ops, preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability and suppression of material facts have been taken up. On merits, it is submitted that there was scheme of the Op that the consumer who will join the new membership will be given complementary discount  of 10% on all products only for one day i.e. the day of his joining.  Accordingly the complainant was given additional discount of 10% on his Ist bill i.e. purchase on 7.1.2017 even on the discounted items too. It is submitted that the on 12.01.2017 the complainant again purchased the products on which the company had already given the discount being clearance of goods and as per and condition no discount of 10% on the basis of  above said scheme /card can be given as two scheme cannot be clubbed. The  market price of product Rajmah is Rs.147/- and MRP of Sunkist Juice is 38. But he has been charged Rs.128/- ( i.e. 25% discount) or Rajmah and Rs.19/- ( i.e. 50% discount ) for Sunkist Juice. Thus, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

3.             The  complainant has tendered documents Ex.C-1 to Ex.C-9 and closed evidence. On the other hand, Ops have tendered documents Ex.OP-1, Ex.Op-2 and closed evidence.

4.             The complainant's main grievance is that  on 12.01.2017  he  purchased some items from the OP no.1 but  OP refused to give the discount of 10% on purchased items as per the scheme  of  "Easyday Savings Club" under the card issued by the OPs. In this regard the OPs case is that  under the said scheme   the consumer who will join the new membership will be given complementary discount  of 10% on all products only for one day i.e. the day of his joining so the complainant was given additional discount of 10% on his Ist bill i.e. purchase on 7.1.2017 even on the discounted items too. It is further case of the OPs that  on 12.01.2017 the complainant again purchased the products on which the company had already given the discount being clearance of goods and as per and condition no discount of 10% on the basis of  above said scheme /card can be given as two scheme cannot be clubbed  and the  market price of product Rajmah is Rs.147/- and MRP of Sunkist Juice is 38 but he has been charged Rs.128/- ( i.e. 25% discount) or Rajmah and Rs.19/- ( i.e. 50% discount ) for Sunkist Juice.

5.             The complainant  has produced on record copy of card and terms and conditions of the scheme Ex.C-7  and Ex.C-8 wherein it  has been specifically mentioned that 10%  discount  will be given on each and every transaction  ( over and  above any running promotion) made through the card on Select products only. The OPs have  produced on record copy of card and its terms and conditions  wherein it has been mentioned that the card cannot be clubbed with other vouchers, existing offer, schemes and discounts running at stores.  The  OPs  have produced record copy of retail invoice/ receipt dated 12.01.2017  which is annexure -II  and same has been produced by the complainant Ex.C-3 wherein  we find that the complainant purchased GHDLY Rajma Whit 1KG for Rs.128/-  and   there is no discount on it  but the OPs have not given  discount of 10% on it as per scheme . On the other hand the Ops have stated  that MRP of the product was Rs.147/- and the complainant was given discount of Rs.19/- on it and charged Rs.128/- but surprisingly the OPs have not produced on record any document which shows that the  MRP of the product was Rs.147/- rather the OPs   have produced on record  copy of document regarding  price of the product of RAJMA CHITR which is Rs.168/-. We failed to understand why the OPs have produced on record that document which is totally conflict with  the version  of the OPs. We feel that if there was no running discount on the product i.e. Rajma of Rs.128/-  then  the Ops should had given the 10% discount on that product but they did not do so rather  they have stated that the MRP of the product is Rs.147/- and Rs.19/- discount was given to the complainant but  they failed to prove this fact on record. As such, we feel that it is a clear cut case of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

6.             For the reasons recorded above, we allow the complaint and direct the OPs to refund to the complainant 10% discounted amount on the purchased item i.e. Rajma of Rs.128/- on 12.01.2017.  We order the OPs to pay to the complainant a consolidated amount of compensation of Rs.3000/- on account of mental pain, agony harassment and litigation expenses and also to deposit Rs.5000/- in the Consumer Legal Aid Account maintained with this Forum.

7.             This order of ours shall be complied with within 30 days from the receipt of copy of the order. Copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                                                                                   Announced

                July 18, 2017

 

 

 

( Vinod Kumar Gulati )  ( Sarita Garg)       (Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                    

Member                    Member                            President

 

 

BBS/-