IN THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MURSHIDABAD AT BERHAMPORE.
CASE No. CC/160/2019.
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
07.11.19 27.11.19 10.01.23
Complainant: Sultan Ahmed
S/O Mourtuja Ali, Imamnagar,
PO-Nayansukh, PS-Farakka, Pin-742202
-Vs-
Opposite Party: Manager, Baazar Kolkata,
A Unit Of Baazar Retail Limited
Kanchantala, PO-Dhuliyan,
PS-Samsergunj, Pin-742202
Agent/Advocate for the Complainant : Akhter Masud
Agent/Advocate for the Opposite Party : Self.
Present: Sri Ajay Kumar Das………………………….......President.
Smt. Aloka Bandyopadhyay……………………..Member.
Sri. Nityananda Roy……………………………….Member
FINAL ORDER
Sri. Ajay Kumar Das, Presiding Member.
This is a complaint under section 12 of the CP Act, 1986.
One Sultan Ahmed (here in after referred to as the Complainant) filed the case against Manager, Bazar Kolkata (here in after referred to as the OP) praying for compensation alleging deficiency in service.
The material facts giving rise to file the complaint are that:-
The Complainant is an Indian citizen by birth and he is residing at Vill-Imamnagar, PS-Nayansukh, PS-Farakka, Murshidabad.
The Complainant purchased some cloths on 14.10.19 from the above mentioned shopping mall amounting to Rs.4,100/- and the Complainant paid the amount through his Debit Card. The Complainant got two gift cards amounting to Rs. 250/- each with the condition that the said two gift vouchers would be adjusted with the bills if the Complainant purchases cloths by 31.10.19. The Complainant again went to the shopping mall on 17.10.19 and he purchased some cloths after paying Rs. 776/- in cash and Rs.1,013/- by adjusting two gift vouchers got earlier.
On 18.10.19 he again went to the shopping mall for exchanging the cloths purchased on 17.10.19 as the cloths were too small. But the OP refused to change those items and the OP used filthy language as the Complainant requested the OP to change those items. The OP asks the Complainant to leave the shopping mall.
Finding no other alternative the complainant filed the instant case before this District Commission praying for an order directing the O.P. to change two items of the Complainant and to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental pain and agony.
The OP is contesting the case by filing written version on 12.03.20 stating inter alia that the present application is not maintainable. The present application is barred by laws of limitation and the present application is bad for mis-joinder, non-joinder of necessary party.
The OP has very clearly stated in his cash memo vide its exchange policies that no exchange of any discounted products will be made. It is humbly submitted that the
voucher/coupon is a contract between the buyer and seller and both are obliged to adhere to the terms contained therein.
On the basis of the complaint and the written versions the following points are framed for proper adjudication of the case :
Points for decision
1. Is the Complainant a consumer under the provision of the CP Act, 1986?
2. Has the OP any deficiency in service, as alleged?
3. Is the Complainant entitled to get any relief, as prayed for?
Decision with Reasons:
All the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity of discussion.
The point to be noted is that after filing this complaint case notice was served upon the OP but the OP did not turn up and as such the case was fixed for ex-parte hearing. Subsequently, the OP filed written version but he did not prayed for setting aside the order for ex-parte hearing. Moreover, we also find that one day OP appeared and filed written version, and since then the OP has not been taking any steps.
However, we peruse the materials on record. Facts and circumstances of the case clearly suggest that the Complainant is a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act.
It is the case of the Complainant that on 18.10.19 he again went to the shopping mall for exchanging the cloths purchased on 17.10.19 as the cloths were too small. But the OP refused to change those items and the OP used filthy language as the Complainant requested the OP to change those items. The OP asks the Complainant to leave the shopping mall.
It is coming out from the written version filed by the OP that the OP has very clearly stated in his cash memo vide its exchange policies that no exchange of any discounted products will be made. It is humbly submitted that the voucher/coupon is a contract between the buyer and seller and both are obliged to adhere to the terms contained therein.
We peruse the tax invoice dated 17.10.19 where in it is found in the terms and conditions that no exchange for winter and discounted items.
Ld. Advocate for the Complainant fairly submits that he purchased cloths on 17.10.19 with cash of Rs. 776/- and two gift vouchers. Such being the position, we are of the view that the Complainant has no merit and it is liable to be dismissed.
Reasons for delay
The Case was filed on 07.11.19 and admitted on 27.11.19. This Commission tried its level best to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible in terms of the provision under section 13(3A) of the CP Act,1986. Delay in disposal of the case has also been explained in the day to day orders.
In the result, the Consumer case is fails.
Fees paid are correct. Hence, it is
Ordered
that the instant complaint Case No. CC/160/2019 be and the same is dismissed on merit without any order as to costs.
Let plain copy of this order be supplied free of cost, to each of the parties / Ld. Advocate/Agent on record, by hand /by post under proper acknowledgment as per rules, for information and necessary action.
The Final Order will also be available in the following Website:
confonet.nic.in
Dictated & corrected by me.
President
Member Member President.
