Haryana

Kurukshetra

253/2017

Sohan Lal - Complainant(s)

Versus

Future Retails - Opp.Party(s)

R.K.Singhal

26 Nov 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KURUKSHETRA.

                                                     Complaint Case No.253 of 2017.

                                                     Date of institution: 07.12.2017.

                                                     Date of decision:26.11.2018.

Sohan Lal Rawat son of Sh. Pyare Lal, resident of House No.987, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetr.

                                                                        …Complainant.

                        Versus

1. Future Retail Limited (Easyday), SCO No.37-P, No.38, Sector-5, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra, through its Manager/Authorized Signatory.
2. Future Retail Limited (Easyday), 3^rd Floor, Plot No.82, Sector-32, near N.I.I.T. Corporation Office Gurugram (Haryana), 122001 through its Authorized Signatory. 

….Respondents.

BEFORE     Smt. Neelam Kashyap, President.

                Ms. Neelam, Member.

                Sh. Sunil Mohan Trikha, Member.

       

Present:     Sh. R.K.Singhal, Advocate, for the complainant.   

                Sh. Arvind Bhardwaj, Advocate for the OPs.

               

ORDER

                This is a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 moved by complainant Sohan Pal against Future Retail Ltd. (Easyday), the opposite parties.

2.            Brief facts of the present complaint are that the complainant is the customer of the Ops since long.  The Ops gave offer to the complainant that he has to pay Rs.999/- for the registration of membership for one year and they assured that on obtaining the membership, the Op No.1 will give 10% discount on each and every purchase through card issued by the Op No.1 for one year.  It is alleged that the complainant got deposited Rs.1,000/- with the Op No.1 and the Op No.1 issued Easy-day Savings Club Card bearing No.9061 5579 1901 2842 to the complainant.  It is further alleged that the complainant purchased some articles from the Op No.1 on 11.11.2017 but the Op No.1 charged full amount and did not give 10% discount on the purchased items.  It is further alleged that on enquiry, the Ops disclosed that the complainant has purchased the material more than Rs.50,000/-, hence, he is not entitled to avail the said discount for one year.  So, it is a clear cut case of deficiency in service on the part of Ops and prayed for acceptance of complaint with the direction to Ops to grant 10% discount on the purchase of house hold articles and further to pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation for harassment and mental agony as-well-as Rs.11,000/- as litigation charges.   

3.            Upon notice, the OPs appeared before this Forum and contested the complaint by filing their reply raising preliminary objections with regard to locus-standi; maintainability; cause of action; that the complainant has concealed the true and material facts from this Forum.  The true facts are that on 18.02.2017 at the time of taking the membership of Easyday Savings Club, the complainant was got understand about all the terms and conditions of the said offer.  As per condition No.2 of the terms and conditions, “the card is valid for the period of one year from the date of issuance or till the net purchase amount of Rs.50,000/- whichever comes earlier”.  It is pertinent to mention here that the complainant purchased material amounting to Rs.50,000/- from the Op No.1 on 04.11.2017 and after purchase the articles of Rs.50,000/-, he is not entitled for any discount from the Ops as per terms and conditions of the offer.  There is no deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  On merits, the objections raised in the preliminary objections are reiterated and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.             In support of his case, the counsel of complainant tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.PW1/A and documents Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 and thereafter, closed the evidence on behalf of complainant.

5.           On the other hand, the counsel of Ops tendered into evidence affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R3 and closed the evidence on behalf of Ops.

6.             We have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the record carefully.

7.             Learned counsel for the complainant contended that the Ops gave an offer to the customer that if the customer pay Rs.999/- for registration of membership for one year and they assured that on obtaining that membership, the Op No.1 will give 10% discount on each and every purchase through card issued by the Ops for one year.  The complainant has purchased that card on 18.02.2017 but on 11.11.2017, the Ops have denied to give 10% discount on the purchased items.  It is further contended by the counsel of complainant that this is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of Ops.  They have denied for 10% discount to the complainant within one year which was promised by the Ops at the time of purchasing of the card.  Ex.P1 is the form submitted to the Ops.  Ex.P2 is an card on which all the terms and conditions were written by the Ops. 

8.             On the other hand, learned counsel for the Ops contended that at the time of giving the card, they have issued one conditional document, which is Ex.R1 which shows the terms and conditions of purchasing i.e. Ex.R3.  It was contended by the counsel of Ops that the card is valid for one year from the date of issuance or till the net purchase amount of Rs.50,000/-, whichever is earlier.  The said terms and condition is mentioned in the document Ex.R3.  So, on the date of 11.11.2017, the second condition has been completed.  He has purchased the material amounting to Rs.50,000/-.  So, the Ops have denied to give the 10% discount to the complainant.  The next point argued by the counsel of Ops that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint because it was mentioned in the document Ex.P2 that jurisdiction is limited to the Kurukshetra Haryana only.

                During the course of arguments of counsel for Ops, the counsel of complainant again contended that at the time of giving the card, which is Ex.P2, no other document was given by the Ops as mentioned in the document Ex.R3.  The only terms and conditions mentioned in the document Ex.P2 are applicable to the complainant.  So, the complainant may please be given three months more time for taking the 10% discount from the Ops.  Regarding the point of jurisdiction, the counsel of complainant contended that the cause of action arose at Kurukshetra because the complainant purchased the card in Kurukshetra and the branch office of the Ops is also in Kurukshetra.  He has placed reliance upon the case law cited in 2011 (2) CPR page 244 titled as Munish Sahgal Vs. DLF Home Developers Limited bearing first appeal No.425 of 2010, date of decision: 09.02.2011, wherein it has been held by Hon’ble National Commission “Validity of Instant case, complaint was dismissed on ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction-Appeal against same-Held, it would defeat very purpose and object of the Act if the provisions of an agreement between a consumer and a service provider alone were to determine the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum-Complaint remitted back to State Commission for adjudication in accordance with law-Appeal allowed”.

9.             From the pleadings, evidence of the case and on appraisal of rival contentions of both the parties, it is clear that the complainant has purchased the card in question on 18.02.2017 and the Ops have denied to give 10% discount to the complainant on 11.11.2017 that means that the nine months have been lapsed.  The authority submitted by the counsel of complainant regarding jurisdiction is applicable to the facts of instant case, so, the contention of Ops that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the present complaint has no force.  We can rely upon the authority titled as Lucknow Development Authority Vs. M.K.Gupta, bearing civil appeal No.6237 of 1990, date of decision: 05.11.1993 (SC), wherein it has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court “Consumer Protection-Promoting welfare of Society-Act is Social benefit oriented legislation-Removing helplessness of consumer in Society where producers have secured power-Provisions of Act should be construed in favour of consumer-Milestone in socio economic legislation history and is directed to achieve public benefit”.  So, keeping in view the ratio applied by Hon’ble Apex Court in the said authority and in view of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the Ops have adopted the act of unfair trade practice and there is gross deficiency in service on the part of Ops.

10.            Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint and direct the Ops to give three months more time for 10% discount on the purchase of house hold articles and further to pay Rs.10,000/- as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony including the litigation charges.  Let the order be complied with within 60 days from the date of preparation of copy of this order, failing which, the complainant shall be entitled one month more time for 10% discount on the purchase of house hold articles in addition to three months more time from the date of order till its realization.  A copy of said order be supplied to the parties free of cost.  File be consigned to record-room after due compliance.     

Announced in open court:

Dt.:26.11.2018.  

                                                                        (Neelam Kashyap)

                                                                        President.

 

 

(Sunil Mohan Trikha),           (Neelam)       

Member                             Member.