Haryana

Panchkula

CC/617/2019

MONIKA . - Complainant(s)

Versus

NATIONAL VEDIOS. - Opp.Party(s)

SATPAL

18 Oct 2023

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,  PANCHKULA

 

                                                       

Consumer Complaint No	:	617 of 2019
Date of Institution	:	20.11.2019
Date of Decision	:	18.10.2023

 

 

Monika r/o H.No.191, Dashmesh Enclave, Dhakoli, Zirakpur, SAS Nagar, Punjab.

 

                                                                           ….Complainant

 

Versus

1.     National Videos, SCO No.403, Sector-20, Panchkula.

2.     M/s LG Electronics India Private Limited, Surajpur Kasna Road, Plot    No.51, Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh-201306.

                                                                   ….Opposite Parties

 

COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019

 

Before:              Sh. Satpal, President.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member

Dr. Barhm Parkash Yadav, Member

 

       

For the Parties:   Sh.Satpal Ranga, Advocate for the complainant.  

                        OP No.1 given up vide order dated 21.09.2023.

                        Ms.Jyoti Rani, Advocate for OP No.2.

                       

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.Briefly stated, the facts, as alleged in the present complaint, are that the complainant had purchased the product i.e. one LG LED 85287219 OLED55C8PTA from the OP No.1 vide invoice dated 14.11.2018 amounting to Rs.1,69,000/- including all taxes etc., wherein two special assured gifts i.e. 24LJ470 and XBOOM HANDY were promised to be given to her. It is stated that one special assured gift i.e. 24LJ470 was delivered to the complainant but the second gift, namely, XBoom Handy was not delivered to her despite her repeated request and visits to OPs. On her visit, she was told to approach the Consumer Forum(now designated as Consumer Commission) by OP No.1 as he was going to close his business. It is stated that a legal notice was sent to OPs No.1 & 2 on 12.10.2019 but no response was received. Due to the act and conduct of OPs No.1 & 2, the complainant has suffered financial loss and mental agony, harassment; hence, the present complaint.

2.Upon notice, the OPs No.1 & 2 appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising preliminary objections that complainant has not come with clean hands; she has no locus-standi; no cause of action has accrued in her favour. It is stated that the OP No.2 i.e. L.G. Electronics is a renowned name in Electronic Products and commodities and has been manufacturing electronic products for past several years. It is stated that the District Consumer Commission at Panchkula has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint because as per the terms and conditions of the assured gift scheme, all disputes are liable to be settled under the jurisdiction of Delhi Court.

                On merits, it is admitted that the complainant had purchased the one LG-LED on 14.11.2018. It is submitted that the said assured gift scheme was available for the customers upon fulfillment of certain terms and conditions, of the “referral offer”, which was valid for 129 days and the assured gift was to be provided upon referring of further customer and that as per terms and conditions, all disputes arising out of the said referral offer, are liable to be settled under the jurisdiction of Delhi Court. The OP No.2 has no knowledge regarding the delivery of the special assured gift i.e. 24LJ470. It is stated that the said gift might have been given by OP No.1 on his own behalf and thus, the present complaint is dismissed being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

3.To prove the case, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit as Annexure C-A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-4 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 has tendered an affidavit as Annexure R-1/A and closed the evidence.

4.Pertinently, at the stage of arguments, Ms.Jyoti Rani, Advocate stated at bar on 06.03.2023 that she was not authorized by OP No.2 to put her appearance on behalf of the OP No.1 but due to inadvertence, she was appearing on behalf of OP No.1 since 16.01.2020. She further stated that she was authorized to defend the case on behalf of OP No.2 only. Since the learned counsel on behalf of complainant had no objection, the OP No.1 was summoned by issuing fresh notice for 08.05.2023 and thereafter, for 19.06.2023 and 08.08.2023. On 21.09.2023, the learned counsel on behalf of the complainant, by making a separate statement, has given up OP No.1 and the case was adjourned to 05.10.2023 for arguments.

5.We have heard the learned counsels for the complainant as well as OP No.2 and gone through the entire record available on file, including written arguments filed by the complainant, minutely and carefully.

6.During arguments, the learned counsel for the complainant reiterated the averments as made in the complaint as also in affidavit (Annexure C-A) contended that the OP no.2 had failed to deliver the assured gift, namely, XBoom handy as promised vide invoice dated 14.11.2018 amounting to Rs.1,69,000/- and thus, the complaint is liable to be accepted by granting the relief as claimed for in the complaint.

7.On the other hand, the learned counsel on behalf of OP No.2 raised the issue of maintainability of the complainant on the ground that as per “Referral scheme”, on the basis of which the complainant is claiming the delivery of the assured gift, the dispute, if any is liable to be settled under the jurisdiction of the Delhi Court.

8.The above objection qua the maintainability of the present complaint before the Commission at Panchkula deserves out right dismissal as the LED in question, admittedly, was sold to the complainant by OP No.2 through National Videos i.e. OP No.1 vide invoice(Annexure C-1) at Panchkula. It is also not in dispute that the complainant was assured the delivery of gift at Panchkula by National Videos i.e. (OP No.1); thus, the objection raised by OP No.2 is rejected being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

9.On merits, the learned counsel has argued that the complainant had failed to fulfill certain terms and conditions of the referral scheme and thus, she was not entitled to the delivery of the assured gift as alleged; therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed being frivolous, baseless and meritless.

10.Admittedly, the LG-LED in question was purchased by the complainant from OP No.1 vide invoice dated 14.11.2018(Annexure C-1) amounting to Rs.1,69,000/-. On the back side of the said invoice  dated 14.11.2018(Annexure C-1), we find that the national videos(OP No.1) had assured the complainant qua the delivery of two gifts, namely Xboom Handy and 24LJ470, after the receipt of the same from OP No.2. As per version of the complainant, the gift, namely, 24LJ470 (LG-LED) had been delivered to her but the second gift, namely, Xboom handy has not been delivered to her. The OP No.2, surprisingly, has stated that it is not aware about the delivery of one gift i.e. 24LJ470(LG-LED TV) to the complainant and further, it has stated that the same might have been given by the OP No.1(National Videos) at its own level.

11.Pertinently, the OP No.1(National Videos) had sold the product of OP No.2 on its behalf and also the gift was delivered by OP No.1(National Videos) to the complainant upon receipts of the same from OP No.2, thus,  version of the OP No.2 that it is not aware of the delivery of the one gift i.e. 24LG470 to the complainant is totally incredible.

12.Moreover, the OP No.2 has preferred not to communicate  with National Videos(OP No.1) qua the delivery of one gift, namely, 24LG470 and non delivery of the second gift of Xboom handy, to the complainant. Since the national videos(OP No.1) being the authorized dealer of OP No.1, had sold the product i.e. LG-LED TV to the complainant vide invoice dated 14.11.2018, it was its duty to contact the OP No.1 so as to make the things clear but it had preferred not to make any communication with OP No.1 for the reasons best known to it.

13.It is a common practice among the manufacturers of various products to make the offers of several items in the shape of gift etc. to the consumers on the purchase of their products by them, so as to promote and increase the sale of their products. In the present case, the OP No.2, being the manufacturer of LG-LED, in order of increase and promote the sale of LG-LED, had offered the delivery of assured gift to the complainant through its authorized dealer/seller i.e. OP No.1; therefore, it(OP No.2) cannot be permitted to evade its liability to compensate the complainant for the non fulfillment of its promise qua the delivery of assured gift to the complainant. As such, the OP No.2 was deficient, while rendering services to the complainant, for which, it is liable to compensate her. However, the OP No.2 is at liberty to seek any kind of compensation, if it so wishes from OP No.1(National Videos) as it is a internal matter between them.

14.Resultantly, the present complaint is partly allowed with the directions to OP No.2 to deliver the “Xboom Handy” to the complainant, free of cost. In case, said “Xboom handy” is not available in the market due to its non manufacturing, in that event, the OP No.2 shall pay a sum of Rs.15,990/- to the complainant in lieu of said “Xboom handy”. The OP No.2 is also directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation to the complainant on account of mental agony and  harassment suffered by her. Further, the OP No.2 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.5,500/- to the complainant incurred by her as litigation charges.   

16.The OP No.2 shall comply with the directions/order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order to OP failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP No.2. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance. 

Announced on:18.10.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav         Dr.Sushma Garg            Satpal

                      Member                     Member                   President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                       Satpal

                                                 President

 

CC. 617 of 2019

 

Present:             Sh.Satpal Ranga, Advocate for the complainant. 

                        OP No.1 given up vide order dated 21.09.2023.

                        Ms.Jyoti Rani, Advocate for OP No.2.                     

 

                        Arguments heard. Now, to come upon 18.10.2023 for orders.

Dt. 05.10.2023

 

 

 

        Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav        Dr.Sushma Garg            Satpal

                Member                            Member                         President                   

 

 

Present:             Sh.Satpal Ranga, Advocate for the complainant. 

                        OP No.1 given up vide order dated 21.09.2023.

                        Ms.Jyoti Rani, Advocate for OP No.2.

                                       

                                Vide a separate order of even date, the present complaint is hereby partly allowed against OP No.2 with costs.

         A copy of the order be sent to the parties free of costs and the file be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

Dated:- 18.10.2023

 

 

       Dr.Barhm Parkash Yadav               Dr.Sushma Garg                   Satpal

                        Member                     Member                    President