CC No.           27/2024

Date:-             06.02.2024

Present:-        Sh. Pankaj Rai Advocate for Complainant

Argument on admission heard. It is interalia the case of the complainant that believing advertisement of the OP who are running online food delivery business, and believing their offer on the product of ‘Shaam Savera’ dish that if they buy one unit they will get one unit free and based on that, he placed an order for the product and paid an amount of Rs. 669.79/- but when the order was received and after opening it, he found that order was different than the actual order and that food pack which was provided was of bad/sub-standard quality and even the second pack was not ‘Shaam Savera’ rather it was ‘Vegetarian Desi Mancho Soup’ instead of ‘Shaam Savera’. The complainant thereafter contacted the Assistant Manager of OP3 who was quite rude and refused to provide further service and complainant was humiliated as a result she had to delay her lunch & thereafter he served a legal notice which was not replied & then she filed present complaint case claiming Rs.3 lakh as compensation on account of physical and mental harassment and also prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.669.79/-.

Argument heard at length.

In the entire documents filed by the complainant it is nowhere written that if the complainant would purchase ‘Shaam Savera’ then he will get another unit for free rather what is written that ‘buy one get one’ & when enquired that there is no word ‘free’  written on the advertisement which may suggest that another unit would be given for ‘free’, the Counsel for the complainant has argued that it amounts to unfair trade practice as the complainant understood it as an offer through advertisement. The Commission is of the opinion that once the matter has reached the Commission then only the documents which are placed on record be appreciated and if the word ‘free’ is not written & despite that if the complainant has understood the same as ‘free’ then there cannot be any deficiency on the part of OP as it is quite specific in his advertisement. The Commission has also enquired that if the second unit was for free then how the Commission would be having jurisdiction for a consumer/customer who is to get something ‘free’ as definition of the consumer as defined in the Section 2 (7) of Consumer Protection Act 2109 does not turn the customer to consumer if a product is taken for free.

The Section 2 of the Consumer defines consumer as follows:-

7) "consumer" means any person who-

(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose, or.........

7) (ii) hires or avails of any service for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such service other than the person who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person, but does not include a person who avails of such service for any commercial purpose. 

Therefore on both these grounds the Commission is of the opinion that the present complaint does not define any deficiency on the part of OP. Therefore complaint case of the complainant is rejected.

File be consigned to record room.