Date of filing :25.1.2018
Judgment : Dt.21.1.2018
Mrs. Balaka Chatterjee, Member
This petition of complaint is filed under section 12 of C.P.Act, 1986 by Smt. Sumanta Banerjee alleging unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties (referred as OP hereinafter) (1) M/s Reliance Retail Ltd. and (2) The Store Manager.
Case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant being attracted by the offer by M/s Reliance Retail Ltd. of cash back upto Rs.15,000/- by way of issuing unique coupon code on purchase of product or service worth Rs.25,000/- or above till November, 2016 had been to the show room of OP name and styled as “Ideal Regency” on 25.10.2016 and 5.11.2016 and purchased product/s of OP on payment of Rs.68,218.07 against three separate receipts issued by the OP. The Complainant has stated that he was assured by the Store Manager Mr. Abhirup Chakraborty that an amount of Rs.15,000/- would be refunded on every transaction of R.25,000/- by way of issuing unique coupon code which would be effective after 8th November, 2016. The Complainant has further stated that she tried hard to avail said cash back by using coupon code issued against her purchase but failed to get the amount and, thereafter contacted the Store Manager to resolve the issue but the Store Manager expressed his inability and the Complainant being aggrieved served Advocate’s letter dt.10.12.2016 upon the OP and on receiving the said letter the Sales Manager went to the residence of the Complainant on 18.12.2016 and informed him that the Complainant might get cash back using ‘Jio Money APP/Jio APP” and tried to show the procedure using the said App to the Complainant using mobile phone of the Complainant but failed to do the same successfully. It is further stated by the Complainant that on 22.12.2016 the OP No.2 issued a letter making allegation against the Complainant in respect of which the Complainant again sent Advocate’s letter dt.6.2.2017 denying the contention of the OP.
It is specific allegation made by the Complainant that the OP failed to establish that there was any existence of cash back facilities using coupon code as promised by the OP which amounts to unfair trade practice and being misled by the OP regarding cash back the Complainant purchased a product of Rs.68,218.07 and was denied to get any help from the end of the OP which caused harassment and mental agony and, therefore, by filing the instant Consumer Complaint prayed for direction upon the OPs to pay Rs.3,00,000/- towards compensation, to pay Rs.50,000/- for cost of litigation, to redeem the unique Gift Coupons and pay the cash back amount or replace the articles purchased on 25.10.2016 by other suitable articles as per choice of the Complainant.
The Complainant annexed cash memo, unique coupon code, Advocate’s letter dt.10.12.2016, reply dt.22.12.2016 and 20.3.2017 issued by OP No.2 Demand notice dt.6.2.2017.
The OPs contested the case by filing written version denying and disputing all the allegations made out in the petition of complaint stating inter alia, that the OP No.1 launched several offers on the account of their 10th Anniversary Celebration for a period of 30.9.2016 to 6.11.2016 which was published in several news papers and pamphlets were circulated in locality through vendors. As per said offer on purchase of products of Rs.2,499/- coupon booklet value of Rs.8,500/-, on Rs.4,999/- coupon booklet value of Rs.15,000/- was available. The OP has stated that under category of ‘Digital’ amount of Rs.500/- and Rs.1,000/- was to be paid back on purchase of product amounting Rs.9,999/- and Rs.19,999/- respectively and the Complainant purchased a product worth Rs.68,218.07 and he was entitled to get coupon of Rs.2,500/- which was handed over to the Complainant and the process of encashment had been mentioned in the said coupon. It is stated by the OP that unique coupon code amount had been uploaded by the OP in the User’s Jio Money Wallet which was to be availed within 46 days i.e. from 7.11.2016 to 23.12.2016 and the Complainant downloaded the App with the help of sales representative of OP but did not avail such offer by entering the unique coupon code given in the voucher and, moreover, when the representative of OP No.1 went to his residence he did not provide him the unique coupon code number. Furthermore, the OP No.1 by his letter dt.22.12.2016 advised the Complainant to complete the procedure which remained unheeded by the Complainant and stipulated period of 46 days had been expired and the Complainant on 6.2.2017 by sending letter stated that legal course of action would be taken which was replied by OP.
The OPs have further stated that cash back upto Rs.15,000/- against transaction of Rs.25,000/- is baseless, no such promise had been made by the OP it was a PAN India Scheme and several customers availed such scheme without having any problem. Moreover, this particular purchase was made by M/S APS Associates not by the Complainant and accordingly prayed for dismissal of the case.
The OP annexed photocopy of pamphlet.
The Complainant filed affidavit-in-chief to which the OP filed questionnaire and the Complainant filed reply.
On the other hand the OP prayed for treating the written version as affidavit-in-chief. Prayer was allowed. The Complainant filed questionnaire against affidavit-in-chief of the OP and the OP filed reply.
Both parties filed BNA.
In course of argument, Ld. Advocate for the Complainant narrated the facts mentioned in the petition of complaint.
The Complainant relied upon the decision reported in –
(1) (2006)IV CPJ 267 (NC) [Bajaj Auto Ltd. vs Pankaj Kumar]
(2) (2004) 5, Sec 65 [Gaziabad Dev. Authority VS Balbir Singh]
Ld. Advocate for the OP submitted that the instant dispute is nothing but misunderstanding. It is further submitted by the OP that purchase was made by M/s APS Associates not by the Complainant and therefore the case is liable to be dismissed.
Points for determination
(1) Whether there is deficiency on the part of the OP.
(2) Whether the Complainant entitled to the reliefs as prayed for.
Decision with reasons
Point Nos.1 & 2
Both points are taken up for comprehensive discussion and decision.
Admittedly, the Complainant purchased some items from OP by paying Rs.68,281.07. It is also admitted by the OP that an announcement was made on their part offering refund of certain amount by gift coupon on purchase of items of different worth to celebrate their 10th Anniversary. The Complainant claimed that he was promised cash back of an amount of Rs.15,000/- on purchase of items worth Rs.25,000/- which he purchased but the said amount had not been paid to his account and/or on demand the Shop Manager visited to his residence and failed to show the process of crediting the amount to the account of the Complainant by using Jio Money APP with the mobile phone of the Complainant. The OP admitted the fact that OP No.2 visited the residence of the Complainant but further stated that he requested and insisted the Complainant to avail the offer immediately since the offer would be closed after expiry of 46 days from 8.11.2016. This OP has stated that the offer was valid from 8th November, 2016 to 23.12.2016 and nation-wide customer availed this offer by using Jio Money App procedure of using such App has been mentioned in the coupon issued by OP. On perusal of copy of coupon it is found that procedure of availing said offer has been mentioned therein. The Complainant has claimed that he was promised to get back an amount of Rs.15,000/- on purchase of item worth Rs.25,000/-. In this respect the OP has stated that it was a nation-wide offer which was circulated through pamphlets where it was clearly mentioned upon purchase of worth of which amount how much, coupon would be handed over and as per their version, the Complainant is entitled to get back Rs.2,500/- only. In support of such contention the OP filed photocopy of pamphlet and business process documents wherefrom it appears that as per their offer purchase of worth of Rs.9,999/- or more voucher amounting Rs.500/- and on purchase of Rs.19,999/- or more voucher amounting Rs.1,000/- would be provided. However, no documents has been filed by the Complainant in support of her contention that an amount of Rs.15,000/- would be paid back by coupon on purchase of item worth Rs.25,000/-.
The Complainant has specifically alleged that the OP misled him regarding cash back and as such, being mislead by the OP the Complainant decided to purchase some item worth Rs.68,281.07 but no evidence has been adduced regarding misrepresentation on the part of the OP.
Further, it appears that the Complainant served a letter dt.10.12.2016 by his Ld. Advocate upon the OPs in reply of which Store Manager of the OP No.1 served a letter dt.22.12.2016 upon Ld. Advocate for the Complainant. Paragraph No.6 of the said letter dt.22.12.2016 clearly shows that the OP suggested the Complainant to credit the cash back amount in favour of him by using Jio Money App within the stipulated period and also offered him help, if required. The said letter dt.22.12.2016 clearly shows that the OPs took step in accordance with their promise for cash back.
Moreover, on perusal of invoice it is found that two separate invoices had been generated by the OP one in favour of the Complainant and another one in respect of M/s APS Associates.
On further perusal of cause title of petition of complaint, it appears that the Complainant Sumanta Banerjee is a partner of M/S APS Associates. Considering this identity of the Complainant we can easily arrive at a conclusion that m/s APS Associates is a partnership Company and purpose of purchase of any item by a partnership company is commercial in nature unless any averment of earning livelihood is impleaded therein and as such we find there is no element of deficiency in service/ and as envisaged under Section 2(1)(c) of the C.P.Act, 1986.
Further, there is no element of unfair trade practice provided under section 2(1)(r) of the C. P. Act, 1986.
The decisions relied by the Complainant is not applicable since those are of different context.
Point Nos.1 & 2 are decided accordingly.
In the result, the Consumer Complainant does not succeed.
Hence
ordered
That CC/33/2018 is dismissed on contest but without any order as to cost.
