Delhi

East Delhi

CC/182/2015

MRIDUL - Complainant(s)

Versus

HOME SHOP - Opp.Party(s)

31 Aug 2017

ORDER

                         CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, EAST, Govt of NCT Delhi

                  CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, 1^st FLOOR, SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI 110092                                  

                                                                                                  Consumer complaint no.        182 / 2015

                                                                                                  Date of Institution                  17/03/2015

                                                                                                  Order Reserved on                 31/08/2017

                                                                                                  Date of Order                          31/08/2017  In matter of

Mr. Mridul Jain, adult   

R/0- 125, Rishabh Vihar 

Delhi 110092……….. ………………….. ………………….……..………………………..….Complainant

                                                                  

                                                                     Vs

1-Home Shop  18     

7^th Floor, FC 24, sector 16A

Film City, Noida, UP

 

2- North India Top Co. Pvt. Ltd.,    

TCI Supply Chain Solutions,

C/o- Acorn Warehouse & Logistics Park 68,  VIII

Kapriwas, Malpura Taluka, Dharuhera, Haryana - 123106…………..……….Opponents

 

Quorum          Sh Sukhdev Singh      President

                         Dr P N Tiwari               Member                                                                                                    

                        

Order by Dr P N Tiwari  Member 

 

Brief Facts of the case                                    

Complainant, a practicing advocate, had filed this complaint for unfair trade practice of OP1 for not encashing two “Gift Coupons” of Rs 500/- each, which he had received free of cost as a complimentary gift for purchasing a Micromax Phablet from OP1 (an online portal).

Complainant purchased one Micromax Phablet having 5.2 inch Android Dual Core Phablet A 075 through online portal, Home Shop 18 as OP1, for a sum of Rs 6599/-which was delivered at his office address at chamber no. F-328, Karkarduma Court Complex, Delhi (Ex CW1/1 to Ex CW1/4 with two gift vouchers of Rs 500/- each (Ex CW1/5 & 6). Complainant after reading terms and conditions printed at the back of the gift coupon felt cheated as these terms were not explained earlier by OP1, so complainant sent a email to OP1 for getting encash of gift coupons of Rs 1000/-, but neither replied nor cash was sent by the OPs.

 

Due to this illegal act and deficiency in services of OP1, suffered mental agony and harassment for not getting Rs 1000/- against ‘gift coupon’, so filed this complaint claiming Rs 50,000/- compensation for harassment and refund of Rs 1000/- for Gift Coupon at the rate of 24%.

 

After receiving notices, both OP1 and OP2 filed written statement and stated same facts. All the contentions were denied as wrong and false. It was stated that OP1 were the online portal and sells number of products of repute of brand manufacturer. In this case, complainant had booked a Micromax Phablet for a sum of Rs 6499/- on 01/05/2014 which was supplied as per terms and conditions well within time of booking at his official court address and till date of filing of this complaint, the said Phablet had no problem.  

OP1 had charged the same amount from complainant. It was admitted that OP1 had given two “Gift Coupon” free of cost of Rs 500/- each under their terms and conditions as complainant if redeems gift coupons against purchase of any product as per terms from OP1 as online, would get concession of the said amount, but would not get cash in term of gift coupon. Here complainant did not understand the terms and conditions and asked for getting cash of Rs 1000/-which was against their terms and conditions. More so, OP1 had not charged any amount for gift coupons, so there was no reason of harassment or financial loss to complainant. As Gift Coupons were free of cost as Complimentary, so such alleged allegation does not fall under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act (Act). Hence, it was jointly prayed to dismiss this complaint.

 

Complainant filed his rejoinder with evidence on affidavit where he stated on affidavit as his contention for reimbursement of Gift Coupon for Rs 1000/- was correct.  

The evidences were also submitted through affidavit for OP1 and OP jointly through Mr. Rajiv Mehra, Authorised representative of OP2 who affirmed on oath that two Gift Coupons of Rs 500/- each were given with the order as free of cost and were to be used by complainant whenever he intended to purchase any product through online portal of OP1, but free gift coupons were not for encashment (Ex OPW1/1A & B).

Arguments were heard from both counsels of parties and after perusal of case file order was reserved.  

We have gone through all the facts and evidences on record. It was evident that complainant had purchased his Micromax Phablet from OP1/online portal and two free gift coupons were also supplied for a value of Rs 500/-each which could have been redeemed on subsequent purchase of items as per their terms and conditions. But complainant wanted cash from these two gift coupons and non receiving of cash stated to have suffered mental agony and harassment for which he claimed compensation of Rs 50,000/-.

It is stated by OP that the gift coupons were supplied “Free of Cost” as a complimentary and such free gift were without any consideration taken or assured for any return. It was also stated by OPs that all goods, services and gift vouchers or coupons received by the customers/complainants does not fall under the ambit of this Act. In such case, it cannot be presumed that complainant has suffered harassment or mental agony as he was not a consumer for free gift.

We have also seen the definition of Consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 under Section 2(1)(d) (i) which reads as –“

                                                               Buys any goods for consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or …  

 

Here in this case, considering the allegation of not encashing gift coupon by OPs as complimentary issued pertains without any consideration and complainant has also not produced any such evidence where OPs wee bound to pay cash for gift coupons contrary to their terms and conditions is clearly presumed that terms and conditions printed over Gift Coupons could not be read or understood by a practicing advocate.

All such free gifts supplied by OP1 pertain to their promotional sale and does not include any additional amount to be charged from their customers. So in such cases, it is also not binding on customers to avail any concession or redeem for ‘cash’ value. Only at the time of further purchase of items/goods through their outlets or on line portal, concession is given as per their terms and condition.      

Hence, there was no deficiency in the service provided by OP1 and also no liability could be fixed on OP2. So complainant has failed to prove any deficiency of OPs. Thus we come to the conclusion that this complaint has no merit and deserves to be dismissed with cost Rs 1000/- to be deposited in the consumer welfare account maintained by this Forum within 15 days from receiving of this order.

The copy of this order be sent to the parties as per Act and file be consigned to the Record Room.

 

(Dr) P N Tiwari –Member                                                 Shri Sukhdev Singh - President