Date of filing :29.6.2017
Judgment : Dt.7.3.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Debajyoti Banerjee alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties namely (1) Keya Seth and (2) ETV News Bangla.
Case of the Complainant in brief is that the Complainant watching advertisement of a product of OP No.1 telecasted over OP No.2 channel for more than one year and being influenced by the said advertisement purchased the said product meant for growing new hair under brand name “Alopex Penta” for a price of Rs.809/- from the showroom of “Keya Seth Exclusive” at 116 A, S. P. Mukherjee Road, P.S.-Kalighat, Kolkata-700 026. The Complainant has stated that he since purchase had been applying the said product regularly but observed that there was no development of new hair growth, rather, on contrary, continuous hairfall made a permanent baldness on his head. According to Complainant the OP No.1 falslely represented the said product through advertisement which amounts to unfair trade practice. At the same time, according to the Complainant, the OP No.2 channel also had been promoting the sale of the said product telecasting misleading advertisement for earning illegal profit which is synonymous to unfair trade practice. Accordingly, the Complainant prayed for direction upon OP to pay Rs.8,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.2,00,000/- towards cost.
Notices were served but the OP No.2 did not file written version. So, vide order No.6 dt.28.8.2017 the case proceeded ex-parte against OP No.2. The OP No.1 contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint, stated inter alia, that the OP No.1 is only the seller of the product not the manufacturer of the said product and OP No.1 never allured any person through the advertisement to purchase the product with assurance for hair growth. Further, the OP No.1 stated that the product had been manufactured under license granted by the Govt. Authority for production of cosmetics not drugs. The OP No.1 further stated that thousands of customers have been using the same product but no such allegation have been leveled against them and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the complaint against the OP No.1.
A written statement on behalf of OP No.2 is found in the record which is filed in January, 2018 (date is not legible) but the same is not taken into consideration since the Consumer Complaint is being proceeded ex-parte against OP No.2 vide Order No.6 dt.28.8.2017.
The Complainant and OP No.1 adduced evidence followed by cross examination in the form of questionnaire and reply thereto.
The Complainant adduced Retail invoice dt.8.6.207, two photographs and a C D.
In course of argument the Complainant narrated the fact mentioned in the petition of complaint Ld. Advocate on behalf of the OP No.1 relied upon the decision reported in (1) 2016 (4) CPR 206 (NC) [Nisan Motor India Pvt. Ltd. vs Giraj Kishsore Bansal & Ors], (2) 2017(1) CPR 643 (NC) [Bhagwan Singh Shekhawat VS M/S R. K. Photostat & Communication & ors.].
Points for determination
- Whether the OPs adopted unfair trade practice?
- Whether the Complainant is entitled to relief as prayed for?
Decision with reasons
Both points are taken up together for comprehensive discussion and decision.
The Complainant has alleged that he being allured by an advertisement telecasted over OP No.2 channel regarding a product being marketed by OP No.1 purchased the said product (under brand name Alopex Penta) at a consideration of Rs.809/- and applied the same to check hairfall on his head. Copy of Cash Memo proves the said purchase. The Complainant has alleged that in spite of regular application of the said product his hairfall had not been checked rather continuous excessive hair fall caused baldness in his head. To substantiate such allegation, the Complainant furnished two photographs of him in a page one is with hair in his head and another is with bald head but the said photograph has not been snapped by any authorized person and that cannot be taken into consideration as to documentary evidence. It has not been substantiated also that the Complainant applied the said product regularly. It is also observed that the Complainant has not raised any question regarding composition of the said product.
It is also observed that the Complainant purchased the said product on 8.6.2017 and finding no positive result regarding new hair growth has filed the instant case on 29.6.2017, which implies during a course of 21 days from purchase he found that the said product is not effective and came into conclusion that the OP has adopted unfair trade practice.
Under such state of affairs, it is held that the Complainant failed to prove his allegation therefore question of relief does not arise at all.
Point Nos.1 & 2 decided accordingly.
In the result, the consumer complaint does not succeed.
Hence,
ordered
That CC/349/2017 is dismissed on contest against OP No.1 and dismissed ex-parte against OP No.2.
