DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BATHINDA CC.No.17 of 12-01-2011 Decided on 30-03-2011
Col. Bhalinder Singh Brar son of Sh.Harcharan Singh, Ammunition Depot, Bathinda Cantt., C/o 56 APO. .......Complainant
Versus Reebok India Company, 530/13 & 4 Bijwasan Delhi-16, through its MD/Manager. Reebok Store C/o HG Retail Solution Pvt. Ltd., B-12, Inner Circle Connaught Place, New Delhi- 110001, through its Manager. Reebok India Co., SCO No.129, G.T.Road, Bathinda, through its Prop./Partner.
......Opposite parties
Complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
QUORUM
Smt. Vikramjit Kaur Soni, President. Dr.Phulinder Preet, Member. Sh.Amarjeet Paul, Member. Present:- For the Complainant: Sh.S.S.Dhillon, counsel for the complainant. For Opposite parties: Sh.N.P.Singh, counsel for opposite party No.3. Opposite party Nos.1&2 exparte.
ORDER
VIKRAMJIT KAUR SONI, PRESIDENT:-
1. The present complaint has been filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as amended up-to-date (Here-in-after referred to as ’Act’). The brief facts of the complaint are that the complainant purchased Reebok Items bearing No.0884560089671 Pgsc Name J02337 Quantity 1, for Rs.4,999.01/-, Item No.0883618981271 PGSC Name J03331 Quantity 1 for Rs.8,999/- and Item No.0884901185246 Pgsc Name I 12833 Quantity 1 for Rs.199/-, total amount of Rs.14,197.01/- from the opposite party No.2 vide bill No.8251 dated 28.09.2009 with a scheme of Double your money offer. The opposite party No.2 issued booklet containing 12 gift vouchers bearing redemption code No.3202546 of Rs.1,000/- each. At the time of purchasing, the opposite party No.2 assured the complainant that “above said vouchers are valid across all exclusive stores of Reebok or Rockport within India” and terms & conditions were also mentioned in the gift vouchers. Out of the above said 12 gift vouchers, 9 gift vouchers are honoured/encashed by the opposite party to the complainant. In the month of October, the complainant approached exclusive store of opposite party at Jaipur and requested him for encashment /honour of the above said vouchers but he told that this scheme has been closed, now there would be no refund or gift on the above said vouchers. The complainant again approached exclusive store of the opposite party at Chandigarh in the second week of November but it again refused for the same. On 15.12.2010, the complainant approached the opposite party No.3 and requested for honouring the above said vouchers but the opposite party No.3 did not pay any heed to his request and further told that this scheme has been closed, now they he have no money or claim for this scheme. The complainant wrote a letter dated 15.12.2010 to the opposite party No.1 through registered post but no reply has been given by the opposite party No.1 and he contacted the opposite party on telephone No.0124-4124100 but no response has been given by the opposite party. Hence, the complainant has filed this complaint. 2. The opposite party No.3 instead of filing the reply has filed an application dated 18.03.2011 for dismissal of the above said complaint on the ground of jurisdiction as well as maintainability. In this application, the opposite party No.3 has submitted that the complainant has purchased Reebok items from the opposite party No.2 at New Delhi and has written a letter dated 15.12.2010 to the opposite party No.1 at New Delhi. The complainant did not purchase any item from the applicant i.e. opposite party No.3 at Bathinda. The opposite party No.3 has also pleaded that this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum as there is intricate and complicated question of law and fact is involved. 3. The complainant has filed reply to this application and has submitted that the complainant is entitled for relief claimed. The opposite party No.3 is branch office of Reebok India Co. and is liable for honouring the gift coupons which it refused with malafide intention. 4. Arguments led by both the parties heard at length. 5. A perusal of documents placed on file shows that the complainant had purchased some items/articles through case memo vide bill No.8251 from Reebok Store C/o HG Retail Solution Pvt. Ltd., B-12, Inner Circle, Connaught Place, New Delhi on 28.09.2009 for Rs.14,197.01/-. The opposite party has issued him 12 gift vouchers, out of which 9 gift vouchers were cashed whereas the remaining 3 coupons were not cashed. The vouchers bearing redemption code No.3202546 was valid from 01.08.2010 to 31.10.2010; 01.10.2010 to 31.12.2010; 01.09.2010 to 30.11.2010, terms and conditions are duly written on these coupons. The complainant himself admitted in his complaint that he has purchased these items from New Delhi and in the month of October, he approached exclusive store of the opposite party at Jaipur and requested for encashment/honour of the abovesaid vouchers but he was told that this scheme has been closed and there would be no refund/honour of the abovesaid vouchers. The complainant again approached the exclusive store of opposite party at Chandigarh in the second week of November and requested him for encashment/honour of the above said vouchers but he again refused the same. The complainant approached on 15.12.2010 to the opposite party No.3 for honouring the abovesaid vouchers but the opposite party No.3 has refused that the complainant has never visited their show room at Bathinda and has pleaded that nothing has been purchased from Bathinda branch. 6. In view of what has been discussed above, no cause of action has arisen at Bathinda although there is a branch of opposite party Nos.1&2 at Bathinda. The support can be sought by the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in case 2010(1) CLT 252 titled Sonic Surgical Vs. National Insurance Company Limited wherein, it has been held that:- “(i) Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 17(2) – Territorial jurisdiction – Insurance claim – Cause of action – The fire admittedly broke out in the godown of the appellant at Ambala – The Insurance policy was also taken at Ambala and the claim for compensation was also made at Ambala – Since no cause of action arose in Chandigarh, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh has no territorial jurisdiction – State Consumer Redressal Commission, Haryana alone will have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint – Do not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. (ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 17(2)(b) (as amended in the year 2003) – Territorial jurisdiction – Expression ’branch office’ Held that the expression ’branch office’ in amended Section 17(2)(b) would mean the branch office where the cause of action has arisen.” As per law laid by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the branch office where the cause of action has occurred partly or wholly, has jurisdiction to try the complaint but in the present complaint, no cause of action has arisen at Bathinda. Hence, this complaint is dismissed in limini without any order as to cost. The complainant is at liberty to approach the appropriate/authority for the redressal of his grievance. 7. A copy of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of cost and file be consigned for record. ’
Pronounced in open Forum 30-03-2011 (Vikramjit Kaur Soni) President
(Dr.Phulinder Preet) Member
(Amarjeet Paul) Member |
