BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SIRSA.
Consumer Complaint no.166 of 2012 Date of Institution : 22.08.2012
Date of Decision : 07.12.2016.
Sunil Kumar son of Sh. Vishamber Lal Chhabra, aged 30 years, resident of Rania, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.
……Complainant.
Versus.
1. Reebok India Company, through its Director, 530/1, 3 & 4 Bijwasan Opp. Ambedkar Colony, New Delhi.
2. M/s Shiv Shakti Collection, Authorized Reebok Showroom, Near Pritam Palace through its proprietor, Hisar road Sirsa.
3. Team Promotion Private Ltd. through its Director, D-160, LGF, Sector-26, Noida (UP).
...…Opposite parties.
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.
Before: SHRI S.B.LOHIA………………………..PRESIDENT
SHRI RANBIR SINGH PANGHAL……MEMBER.
Present: Sh. Harish Chhabra, Advocate for the complainant.
Opposite party No.1 already exparte.
Sh. B.S. Vinayak, Advocate for opposite party no.2
Opposite party no.3 given up.
ORDER
Brief facts of the present complaint are that opposite party no.1 launched a scheme “Bangkok Bonanza, fly to Bangkok for 5N/6D” on purchase of Rs.10,000/- or above. The complainant purchased products of op no.1 from op no.2 worth Rs.10,162/- vide bill No.528 dated 30.6.2010. The op no.2 provided Book in request form to the complainant for the scheme. As per terms and conditions of the scheme, the complainant sent original book request form with hologram of Team Promotions Private Limited and demand draft of Rs.4,999/- towards handling charges to op no.3 within time alongwith departure dates of three preference. In response to his claim, op no.3 replied with an excuse for non availability of preferred dates. OP no.3 further requested the complainant to submit new fresh dates and accordingly he further provided them three new preferred dates as Feb 26th of 2011, March 8th of 2011 or March 19th of 2011. Then complainant contacted with ops no.2 & 3 number of times but both of them were adamant to ignore the complainant and his claim and despite several requests, they did not answer properly. The complainant got served legal notice upon ops and in reply to legal notice, op no.3 submitted its inability to arrange the tour for the complainant. OP no.3 also offered refund of payment made by complainant for product i.e. Rs.10,162/- and handling charges of Rs.4,999/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment till realization. The complainant being harassed from ops accepted the offer. The op no.3 assured him to pay the amount up to 30th September, 2011 but till today despite several requests, op no.3 has not made payment. In the last week of December, 2011, op no.3 flatly refused to pay any amount to him. The complainant came to know that number of consumers have been defrauded by op no.1 with the collaboration of op no.3 and by using their representative like op no.2. The complainant earlier filed a consumer complaint no.3/12 which was dismissed in default for want of prosecution. Hence, this complaint for a direction to ops to arrange the tour program for complainant and to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- on account of mental agony and also litigation expenses.
2. On notice, opposite party no.1 did not appear and was proceeded against exparte.
3. Opposite party no.2 appeared and filed written version submitting that answering op has no role or participation with regard to the alleged scheme and he has no liability of any kind in respect of the scheme which is subject matter of the present complaint and op no.3 is only liable and responsible, who is having its office at Noida but the complainant only in order to make the jurisdiction at Sirsa has impleaded the answering op as a party. The answering op did not explain or assure about the alleged scheme. The complainant himself disclosed about the scheme as alleged upon which the answering op forwarded the complainant to op no.3 as the op no.3 is the authorized contractor of the company to deal and take out the correspondence with regard to the scheme. Remaining contents of the complaint have been denied.
4. Opposite party no.3 could not be served for want of correct address and op no.3 was ordered to be summoned through publication but ultimately op no.3 was given up by learned counsel for complainant.
5. By way of evidence, complainant has produced his affidavit Ex.C1, booking request form Ex.C2, bill No.528 dated 30.6.2010 Ex.C3, descriptions of products Ex.C4, copy of demand draft Ex.C5, schedule of new dates dated 20.9.2010 Ex.C6, courier receipts Ex.C7 to Ex.C9, request letter for new dates Ex.C10. On the other hand, op no.2 tendered his affidavit Ex.R1.
6. We have heard learned counsel for complainant and learned counsel for opposite party no.2 and have gone through the case file carefully.
7. The purchase of products for the amount of Rs.10,162/- by the complainant from opposite party no.2 is proved through bill No.528 dated 30.6.2010 Ex.C3 and said fact is not denied by op no.2. The demand draft of Rs.4999/- as handling charges has been sent to the opposite party no.3 but op no.3 could not be served for want of correct address and ultimately op no.3 was ordered to be summoned through publication in the newspaper but instead of making compliance of the order, the op no.3 was given up by complainant for the reasons best known to him. The request letter for new dates Ex.C10 was sent by op no.3 to the complainant and not by ops no.1 & 2 and therefore, ops No.1 & 2 cannot be held liable for tour program of the complainant. Moreover, there is inconsistency between the new dates of tour program as mentioned in the complaint wherein three new preferred dates have been given by complainant as Feb 26th of 2011, March 8th of 2011 and March 19th of 2011 whereas in the separate schedule of dates dated 20.9.2010 Ex.C6, the dates are given as 8.11.2010, 18.11.2010 and 28.11.2010. The ops No.1 & 2 are only liable to refund amount of Rs.4999/- to the complainant alongwith interest in absence of op no.3 who has been given up by complainant.
8. Thus, as a sequel to our above discussion, we partly accept the present complaint and direct the opposite parties No.1 & 2 to refund the amount of Rs.4,999/- alongwith interest @9% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing of present complaint i.e. 22.8.2012 till actual realization. This order should be complied by the ops no.1 & 2 jointly and severally within a period of two months from today. A copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum. President,
Dated:07.12.2016. District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Sirsa.
Member.
