Punjab

Sangrur

CC/650/2017

Heena Gupta - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future Group - Opp.Party(s)

Sh.Tarun Goyal

19 Mar 2018

ORDER

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SANGRUR

                             

                                                                   Complaint no. 650                                                                                         

                                                                 Instituted on:  07.12.2017                                                                                   

                                                                 Decided on:    19.03.2018

 

Heena Gupta d/o Varinder Kumar Garg resident of Street No.1, Gopal Nagar, Jakhal Road, Sunam Tehsil Sunam, District Sangrur.    

                                                …. Complainant.   

Versus

 

1.       Future Group, Future Retail Pvt. Limited Branch Office, 4th Floor, Plot No.82, Sector-32, Gurgaon, Gurugram-122001 (Haryana) through its M.D.

2.       Easy Day, Future Retail Limited, 636/1, Opposite ICICI Bank, Aggarsain Chowk, Sunam District Sangrur through its Store Manager.

                                                  ….Opposite parties.

 

FOR THE COMPLAINANT:       Shri Tarun Goyal,   Advocate                          

 

FOR THE OPP. PARTIES   :        Shri Gagandeep Bhagria, Advocate

 

Quorum

                                                

Sukhpal Singh Gill, President

Sarita Garg,   Member

 

                 

ORDER:  

 

 

Sarita Garg, Member

 

1.             Heenu Gupta, complainant has preferred the present complaint against the opposite parties (referred to as OPs in short) on the ground that on 25.11.2017  she purchased two packet of Priya Gold Coconut Biscuit item for an amount of Rs.80/- from the OP no.2.  At the time of purchase, she saw  a tag paste on the counter of Biscuit that " Buy 2 get 1 Free" and asked the Manager  of the OPs  for a free packet of biscuit but the Manager of OPs denied to give a free packet of biscuit to the complainant. Thus, alleging unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complainant has sought following reliefs:- 

i)      OPs be directed to give a free packet of biscuit as per scheme,

 ii)    OPs be directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.50,000/- on account mental agony and harassment and to pay Rs.22000/- as litigation expenses.

2.             In reply filed by the OPs, it is submitted that the product two Priya Gold Coconut Biscuits alongwith other products were purchased on 25.11.2017. It is denied that there was any hash tag on the store of Ops for product Priya Gold Coconut Biscuits " Buy 2 get 1 free". This fact is very much clear from the bill as well as copy of MRP slip of the product.  The alleged photograph produced by the complainant  regarding scheme tag has no concern  with the OPs.  It is denied that on 25.11.2017  the alleged price tag was displayed  in the store of the OPs. 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-4 and closed evidence. On the other hand, OPs have produced an affidavit Ex.OP-1 and closed evidence.

4.             From the perusal of documents produced on the file and after hearing the arguments of both the parties, we find it is an admitted case that the complainant purchased two packets of Priya Gold Coconut Biscuit for Rs.80/- from the OPs on 25.11.2017 . She stated in her complaint that she saw a tag pasted on the counter of biscuit that  Buy 2 get 1 Free at the time of purchasing. So, she demanded a free packet of biscuit from the OPs but the OPs denied to give free packet of biscuit to the complainant. The OPs stated in their reply and affidavit that there was no scheme on the store on the product Priya Gold Coconut biscuit Buy 2 get 1 free on the date of purchase by the complainant. There was no hash tag on the store of OPs on 25.11.2017. The OPs further  stated that they have rightly charged Rs.80/- for the product as MRP.

5.             In view of the above discussion, we find that the complainant has exhibited Ex.C-3 and Ex.C-4 to prove her case but we find no difference between them  while examining  the same   both the documents are similar. There is no clarity of documents produced on the file by the complainant.  We do not find which is a copy of tag and which is copy of product. The complainant has not exhibited  the original product to make difference and  to prove her case. Moreover no date is mentioned on the tag to prove that the scheme   was  on the date when the complainant purchased  the product. So, we find no merit in the complaint and the same is dismissed. A copy of the order be supplied to the parties free of charge. File be consigned to records in due course.                     

                Announced

                March 19, 2018

 

 

 

                               (SaritaGarg)                   ( Sukhpal Singh Gill)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    
Member                              President