Date of Filing : 17/01/2022

Date of Judgement : 02/01/2024

Mrs. Monihar Begum, Hon’ble Member

                                                                      Brief Facts

On being allured by the lucrative offer/sale of electronic goods by the OP, complainant visited the retail store of the OP at Kasba and bought one washing machine being Haier HWM65, 6.5 kg, top loading at a price of Rs.14,500/- vide order receipt No. W/6022/2122/04291 dt. 25/12/2021.  But he was not given the electric kettle, which was the assured gift for the said washing machine, as promised by the Company in their advertisement, despite demands.  So, he mentioned in the tax invoice-cum-delivery note, the receipt of the item without the assured gift.  Subsequently, on 29/12/2021 he issued a notice through his Advocate seeking compensation from the OP.  But the said notice returned unclaimed.  Thus, alleging negligence on the part of the OP and intentional refusal to provide the assured gift, he preferred the instant complaint before this commission praying for an order on the OP to provide the assured free gift, compensation and cost of litigation.

The OP appeared and contested this case by filing a written version alongwith evidence etc. contending that they provide different promotional offers and discounts on different festive occasions and admitted the complainant having visited their store on 25/12/2021 at Kasba and wanted to buy the said machine which was being sold under festive offer at a discounted price of Rs.14,990/- on a “cost to cost” basis.  But the complainant insisted on further discounts and ultimately with the intervention of the Branch Manager of the OP, complainant agreed to forego the said electric kettle in order to bring down the discounted price at Rs.14,500/-.  But after making the payment, the complainant demanded the said electric kettle and refused to accept the offer of a gift of a glass bowl set.  According to OP, there was no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their part.

Both parties filed their evidence and also produced the documents.

Now, the point of determination is, whether the complainant is entitled to any relief(s) in this case?

                                                                      FINDINGS

In the written argument made on behalf of the complainant, it was alleged that the OP adopted unfair trade practice u/s 2(47) (III) (a) of the C.P. Act in connection with their dealings with him who bought one Haeir Washing Machine from the OP.  According to complainant, despite making an offer of a guaranteed gift in the advertisement OP, in fact, had shown no intention of giving the gift in practice.

Admittedly, complainant visited the retail store of the OP at Kasba on 25/12/2021 and bought one Haeir washing machine.  Admittedly, the said washing machine was sold at Rs.14,500/- and out of that, complainant paid Rs.14,000/- and remaining Rs.500/- was adjusted towards the value of the scrap i.e. the old washing machine of the complainant which was exchanged and this is found from the copy of the invoice produced by the complainant.

It is found from the materials on record that, in the advertisement the discounted price of the said item was offered at Rs.14,990/- with a free gift of one electric kettle.

According to complainant, the said gift was not actually given to him.  In this regard, OP claimed that the complainant insisted on a further discount over and above the offered discounted price of the said item and they agreed to settle the price at Rs.14,500/- provided the complainant had to forego the said item of gift, to which complainant agreed. But later allegedly he backtracked after the invoice was issued and claimed the said item of gift and he did not even agree to take any item of glass bowl set as gift.

Now, what actually happened at the time, it was absolutely in the knowledge of the complainant and the employees of the OP who were present there at the relevant time.  So, in order to get at the truth, we need to fall back upon the questionnaires and replies thereto as exchanged between the parties.  In their questionnaires, OP put specific questions namely –

Q. No. 6 – I put to you that you had sought discount over and above the festive offer price.

Q. No. 7 - I put to you that at the time of billing, you had proposed to forego the electric kettle in order to avail discount over and above the festive offer price.

Q. No. 8- I put to you that post raising of the tax invoice at a discounted price over and above the festive offer price as per your proposal, you denied the proposal given at the time of preparation of the tax invoice at a discounted price. 

But, from the replies of the complainant, we find he evaded giving specific answer to the aforesaid specific questions put to him and the complainant is found to have tried to evade to answer the same by using the words either “yes” or “no” and the replies he gave presumably, in order to avoid facing the truth and this way he virtually admitted the contention of the OP.  The failure to give satisfactory replies on the part of the complainant is going to disentitle him from getting any relief in this case.

In the circumstances, the sufferings of severe harassment, mental agony and inconvenience due to the indifferent and arbitrary attitude as claimed and alleged by the complainant have nothing to do in the given facts and circumstances to enable him to get relief in this case.  Therefore, on consideration of the materials on record, we find that the instant complaint is liable to be dismissed. 

Accordingly it is

                                     ORDERED

That the instant complaint stands dismissed.  No order as to cost.

Dictated and corrected by

          MEMBER