Order No.10
Dt.18.4.2016
This is a complaint by one Swagata Sengupta, W/O Partha Sarathi Kashyapi, 143/2, Hossainpur, 2nd floor, P.S. Survey Park, Kolkata – 700 107, against Managing Director, Big Bazar, Metropolis, Highland Park, Chakgaria, P.S.-Haridevpur, Kolkata-94.
In present case one i.e. petitioner is a customer of Big Bazar and she went to Big Bazar Mall to avail offer in a particular item. She purchased a Kurta and leggings of Rs.349/- and Rs.499/- respectively. There was mention of 20% offer. Petitioner paid Rs.5,109.17 for her total bill amount. Further, petitioner noticed that the original price of the two items were calculated in Annexure-A i.e. original price. Further contention of petitioner is that she was not offered discount. On the next day she went to the Big Bazar office and contacted one Manali Sen who introduced herself as CSD Manager. She replied that she will be able to refund the amount of leggings only and further informed that the organization will not be able to provide any discount on Kurta. Complainant personally requested but of no use. She refused to provide the discounted offer. Thereafter Complainant sent legal notice to the Managing Director of said Big Bazar on 5.10.2015 by Registered Post.
So, Complainant prayed for return of excess of amount charged Rs.15,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.
Against this opposite party filed written version and contested the case. Opposite party has denied the allegation mentioned in the complaint. Further, opposite party has stated that it was the duty of the Complainant to challenge price and claim it on the date and at the time of billing. It is further case of opposite party that there was no such discount offer. So this opposite party prayed for dismissal of the complaint.
On the basis of the above facts the following points for determination are framed.
- That there was discount offer on the items claimed by the Complainant.
- That opposite party intentionally did not offer the discount.
- That by not offering the discount opposite party made deficiency in service and Complainant suffered due to the conduct of the opposite party.
Decisions and reasons
In the present case Complainant has filed the bill in original and the letter which was issued to the Managing Director which is Annexure-C.
Complainant has filed a petition for treating the facts of the Complainant as his affidavit-in-chief. Further, we find that opposite party has filed a set of questionnaire to which Complainant has replied. On perusal of the questionnaire and answers to that it appears that Complainant saw offer of 20% discount on the items but no discount was offered and original price was charged.
It is settled law that any display in any show room or even inside where the clothes or articles remained displayed are not offer but invitation to offers and the customer at the time of payment makes offer to the shop keeper which shop keeper may accept or may not accept. As such, even if it is accepted that there was some tag of offer of 20% or upto 20% it was invitation to offer and when the Complainant did not challenge this at the time of billing and payment; she went on next day and challenged it. Further, it is in the complaint that Complainant visited the next day to the Big bazaar and asked for discount which was refused by the Big Bazar authority.
In our view this challenge cannot be made on the next day. It is because this does not relate to defect in the clothes about either the clothes being torn of or not wearable.
Complainant did not place any cogent document except the bill to establish that there was offer of 20% in these two items. As such, I found that there is no ground to allow the prayer of the Complainant.
Admittedly Complainant went on the next day for challenging the bill amount on the ground that there was 20% discount on the next day. But, of course, challenged on the next day does not confer any right to the Complainant to make claim of discount after 24 hours which she failed to make at the time of billing and payment of the amount by her.
So, we find that there is no ground to allow the prayer of the Complainant.
Hence
O R D E R E D
CC/75/2015 and the same is dismissed on contest.
