Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/12/2019

V.Muni Siddesh Reddy, S/o V.Balarami Reddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s Unlimited Show Room, Rep. by its authorized signatory - Opp.Party(s)

National Association of Consumers (NAC)

06 Nov 2019

ORDER

Filing Date: 11.12.2018

Order Date:06.11.2019

 

 

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI

 

 

      PRESENT: Sri.T.Anand, President (FAC)

               Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

WEDNESDAY THE SIXTH DAY OF NOVEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINTEEN

 

C.C.No.12/2019

 

 

Between

 

 

Vellore Muni Siddesh Reddy,

S/o. Vellore Balarami Reddy,

Aged 35 years,

Room No.105,  Garudachala Hostel,

Sanskrit Vidyapeet,

Tirupati – 517 507.                                                                          … Complainant.

 

And

 

 

M/s. Unlimited (Show Room),

Rep. by its Authorised Signatory,

D.No.227/1, Next to HDFC Bank,

AIR Bypass Road,

Tirupati – 517 501.                                                                          …  Opposite party.

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 27.09.19 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing The President, National Association of Consumers (NAC) - for the complainant, and Sri.K.Rajesh, counsel for opposite party, and having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT (FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, praying for a direction to the opposite party, to refund bill amount of Rs.13,600/- with 24% interest from 22.09.2018 onwards, which was collected from the complainant on pretext of free bag and towel with deceptive advertisements, to pay compensation of Rs.90,000/- in addition to payment of Rs.5,000/- towards litigation expenses.

            2.  The complaint averments are as follows:- Lured by wide publicity given through advertisements in Eenadu and Hindu daily news papers and also display boards arranged outside and inside of the opposite party showroom to the effect that “shop for Rs.3000/- at the Unlimited store and get a Duffle bag free” and “shop for Rs.4,000/- and get a Gym Bag free (Additional one face towel free)”. The complainant purchased dresses / other items from the opposite party for a consideration of Rs.13,600/- vide bill No.A518IN032435, dt:22.09.2018. The opposite party has charged Rs.843/- towards cost of three bags illegally by cheating him instead of giving at free of cost, as per the advertisements given by the opposite party. Further, the opposite party also charged Rs.69/- additionally towards cost of three towels illegally by cheating him, as it has to be given free of cost, as per the advertisement given by opposite party. Though the complainant brought to the notice of opposite party about charging extra amount, they did not consider his request and as such he got issued notice dt:23.10.2018 through registered post with acknowledgement due vide postal receipt No.RN599896920IN dt:25.10.2018, which was acknowledged by opposite party on 26.10.2018, but there was no response from the opposite party. It is alleged that the opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service, and as such complainant has to undergo mental agony, for which compensation has to be paid by the opposite party. Hence, it is prayed to allow the complaint.  

            3. Opposite party filed the written version contending as follows – At the outset complaint allegations are denied. The allegation in para.1 of the complaint that complainant had purchased dresses / other items from opposite party for a consideration of Rs.13,600/- vide bill No.A518IN032435 dt:22.09.2018 has to be proved by the complainant. The allegations in para.2 of the complaint that complainant was lured by wide publicity given through advertisements in Eenadu and Hindu daily news papers, and also display boards arranged outside and inside of the opposite party showroom stating that “Shop for Rs.3,000/- at the Unlimited Store and get a duffle bag free” and “Shop for Rs.4,000/- and get a Gym Bag free (Additional one face towel free” are to be strictly proved by the complainant. It is denied that opposite party collected Rs.843/- towards cost of three gym bags illegally and Rs.69/- towards cost of three towels from the complainant, though they promised to give the items free of cost, as per the advertisement is false. It is false to say that complainant brought to the notice of the opposite party about collection of cost of the bags and towels from the complainant illegally, and that opposite party did not consider the request of the complainant. The opposite party denied that notice dt:23.10.2018  issued by the complainant through registered post and acknowledgement due vide postal receipt No.RN599896920IN dt:25.10.2018 was acknowledged by the opposite party on 26.10.2018, and that opposite party did not give any reply to the same even after lapse of one month. It is denied that opposite party indulged  in unfair trade practice and committed deficiency in service, for which the complainant is entitled to get compensation of Rs.90,000/-.

            4.  The opposite party submitted that in document No.1, dt:22.09.2018 i.e. bill No.A518IN032435 for Rs.13,600/-, there are four headings with DISC. AMT LINE AMT shown in last column, in which total discount was shown. Apart from this, at the end of the bill, there is again total description of the total items purchased, gross total and discount amount and total amount paid. Nowhere in the bill it is shown that the opposite party had charged or collected even a single paisa from the complainant for the gift offer i.e. Duffle Bag. So, the complainant contention that opposite party charged even for the gift items is not proved. Hence, there is no question of opposite party indulging unfair trade practice or committed deficiency in service. Accordingly, it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

            5.  Complainant filed the chief affidavit as P.W.1 and got marked Exs.A1 to A5. One Sri.C.Balakrishna, authorized person of opposite party has filed the chief affidavit as R.W.1, and no documents are marked on behalf of the opposite party.

            6.  The point for consideration is whether there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party, as alleged by the complainant? If so, to what extent the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?

            7. Point:-  Written arguments filed by both parties. During the course of arguments, opposite party filed calculation memo. There is no dispute that complainant purchased items worth of Rs.13,600/- from the opposite party vide Ex.A1. There is no dispute that as per Exs.A4 and A5 display boards kept outside the showroom and advertisements were also given in Eenadu and Hindu daily news papers, as per which duffle bags and gym bags were offered free of cost to the customers, who purchase the items worth more than Rs.3,000/-. The complainant contends that though he purchased the items worth of Rs.13,600/- from the opposite party, the opposite party has charged for the gym bags and thus indulged in unfair trade practice. Ex.A2 is legal notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party and the same was received by opposite party under Ex.A3.

            8.  According to opposite party Ex.A1, dt:22.09.2018 shows that there are four headings with discount amount, line amount in the last column, and at the end of the bill, there is again total description of the total items purchased, gross total and discount amount and total amount paid are mentioned. Nowhere in the bill it is shown that the opposite party had charged or collected even a single paisa for the gift offer i.e. gym bag. So, it is contended that when Ex.A1 clearly showing that no amount was charged for gym bag, complainant’s contention that the gym bag was also charged along with other items purchased cannot be accepted. The opposite party counsel argued that complainant had availed the benefit of gift offer without spending a penny for the same and paid only for the products purchased. In the calculation memo filed by the opposite party, it is mentioned that complainant had purchased shirts, t-shirts, carry bag, gym bag and towel. The opposite party is a brand showroom paying GST etc., it had purchased the gift items and showed in the bill, but the gift items were not charged, and it is explained in the memo that item value inclusive of gift product is valued at Rs.15,904/- but the complainant had paid only Rs.13,600/-.

9.  There is no dispute that MRP rate for all the items purchased is Rs.15,904/- and the discount value is Rs.2304/-. The bags cost is shown in S.No.3 of the memo filed by the complainant. Towels worth Rs.69/- is shown as S.No.2 of the said memo. All these facts are not in dispute. But the opposite party contention is that discount value is nothing but the gift article cost i.e. Rs.2304/-, and since discount is given, it is to be construed as not charging extra amount from the complainant for the gift offers. So, the opposite party submission is that though the gift offer items are also shown in the bill, ultimately by way of discount complainant got the gift items free of cost.  We are not in a position to understand how the discount amount is linked to the offer of free gifts. The memo filed by the complainant clearly shows that opposite party has collected the cost of the  bags and towels from the complainant, which are offered at free of cost. Discount may be there, and it is a separate offer and cannot be mixed with free gift offer. We therefore hold that opposite party has indulged in unfair trade practice by collecting cost of the free gifts. Accordingly, we hold that the contention of the complainant has to be accepted and as such complaint is partly allowed.

10.  In the result, complaint is partly allowed directing the opposite party to refund the bill amount of Rs.13,600/- (Rupees thirteen thousand six hundred only) with interest at 6% p.a. from 22.09.2018 till realization, and further complainant is also awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) towards compensation, in addition to Rs.3,000/- (Rupees three thousand only) towards costs of the complaint.  Time for compliance of the order is six (6) weeks from the date of this order, failing which the compensation amount of Rs.5,000/- shall also carry interest at 6% p.a. from the date of this order, till realization.                

Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 6^th day of November, 2019.

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                    

Lady Member                                                                                               President (FAC)

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDECNE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

 

PW-1: Sri Vellore Muni Siddesh Reddy (Chief affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

 

RW-1: Sri C. Balakrishna (Evidence affidavit filed).

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Bill No. A518IN032435 for Rs.13, 600/- Dt. 22.09.2018.
	Office copy of Notice sent to the opposite party along with postal receipt in original. Dt: 23.10.2018.
	Photo copy of Postal Track Consignment. Bearing Tracking No. RN599896920IN.
	Photo showing the display boards outside of the show room in original.
	Original copy of Advertisement given by the opposite party in Hindu News Paper.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

 

-NIL-

   

                                                                                                                                   Sd/-

                                                                                                                          President (FAC)

    

                                   // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

          Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

      

 

  Copies to:-   1.  The complainant.

                        2.  The opposite party.