DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOZHIKODE
PRESENT: Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN, M.Com, LLB : PRESIDENT
Smt. PRIYA.S, BAL, LLB, MBA (HRM) : MEMBER
Sri.V. BALAKRISHNAN, M Tech, MBA, LL.B, FIE: MEMBER
Thursday, the 12th day of September 2024
CC. 271/2024
Complainant
Jasiludheen. P,
Poonthiruthi House,
Kalandithazham,
Chelavoor Post,
Kozhikode – 673 571.
Opposite Parties
- Managing Director,
Swiggy Private Ltd,
No.55, SY No. 8-14, Ground floor, I & J Block,
Embassy Tech Village, Outer Ring Road,
Devarbisanahalli,
Bangalore, Karnataka – 560 103.
- Manager,
NIC Ice Creams,
60, 541, Jaz Tower, Ground floor,
Opp. Coronation Theatre,
Kottaparamba road,
Kozhikode – 673 004.
ORDER
By Sri. P.C. PAULACHEN – PRESIDENT
This is a complaint filed under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
- The case of the complainant, in brief, is as follows:
The first opposite party is the food distributor and the second opposite party is the partner restaurant of the first opposite party and franchisee of NIC ice creams in Kozhikode. On 24/04/2024 the complainant’s friends and family gathered happily and he decided to buy an ice cream for the invitees and while inquiring about the ice cream, he noticed that the first opposite party had an advertisement saying “Buy one get one free,” available from 8 pm to 9 pm. Lured and carried away by the said advertisement and offer, the complainant purchased one box of 500 ml of almond roasted ice cream from the second opposite party through the first opposite party online food delivery platform paying an amount of Rs. 194/- through Amazon pay UPI after discounting from the marketing price.
- The delivery boy of the first opposite party delivered only one box of 500 ml ice cream instead of two. When he asked the delivery boy, he stated that he was not aware of it. The complainant contacted the opposite parties, but they failed to answer. He sent an e-mail to the first opposite party on the same day expressing dissatisfaction. The first opposite party responded to the e-mail stating that in order to take advantage of buy one get one free offer, the complainant need to place an order with two items in the cart and the least valued item would be given as free and that as the complainant ordered one quantity, he was not eligible for the offer. The reply of the first opposite party is distinct from the advertisement. The complainant was unable to provide his friends and family enough scoop of ice cream which made him frustrated and ashamed. He was put to intense mental agony and inconvenience due to the act of the opposite parties. Hence the complaint to direct the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation and to direct the opposite parties to discontinue the unfair trade practice of making false / misleading advertisement and hiding terms and conditions.
- The opposite parties were set ex-parte.
- The points that arise for determination in this complaint are;
- Whether there was any unfair trade and business practice or deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties, as alleged?
2) Reliefs and costs.
- PW1 was examined and Exts A1 to A5 were marked.
- Heard.
- Point No 1: PW1, who is none other than the complainant, has filed proof affidavit in terms of the averments in the complaint and in support of the claim. Ext A1 is the screen shot of the advertisement, Ext A2 is the screen shot of G-pay, Ext A3 is the screen shot of receipt, Exts A4 and A5 are the screen shots of e-mail.
- The evidence of PW1 stands unchallenged. The opposite parties have not turned up to file version and to contest the case. The opposite parties have not adduced any evidence to disprove the averments in the complaint or to rebut the veracity of the documents produced and marked on the side of the complainant. There is no contra evidence. The case of the complainant stands proved through the testimony of PW1 and Exts A1 to A5.
- The act of the opposite parties amounts to unfair trade and business practice and deficiency of service. Undoubtedly, the complainant was put to mental agony and inconvenience due to the act of the opposite parties. He is entitled to be compensated adequately. Considering the entire facts and circumstances, we are of the view that a sum of Rs. 10,000/- will be reasonable compensation in this case. The opposite parties are jointly and severally liable.
- Point No. 2:- In the light of the finding on the above point, the complaint is disposed of as follows;
a) CC.271/2024 is allowed in part.
b) The opposite parties are hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as compensation to the complainant for the mental agony and inconvenience suffered.
c) The payment as afore stated shall be made within 30 days of the receipt of copy of this order, failing which, the amount of Rs. 10,000/- shall carry an interest of 9% per annum from the date of this order till actual payment.
d) The liability of the opposite parties to pay the amount shall be joint and several.
e) No order as to costs.
Pronounced in open Commission on this, the 12th day of September, 2024.
Date of Filing: 10/05/2024
Sd/ Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant :
Ext A1 - Screen shot of the advertisement.
Ext A2 - Screen shot of G-pay.
Ext A3 - screen shot of receipt.
Exts A4 - Screen shots of e-mail.
Exts A5 - Screen shots of e-mail.
Exhibits for the Opposite Party
NIL
Witnesses for the Complainant
PW1 - Jasiludeen.P (Complainant).
Witnesses for the opposite party
NIL
Sd/ Sd/- Sd/- PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
True Copy,
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar.
