(ORAL)

The present revision petition has been filed against the order of Punjab State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short, the State Commission) dated 16.06.2017 in Appeal No. 337 of 2017 filed by the petitioner against the order dated 03.03.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana ( in short, the District Forum), whereby his complaint no. 58 of 2016 was dismissed.

2.         The brief facts of the case are that petitioner purchased a pair of shoes from respondent no.1 on 24.01.2015 vide receipt no. SC 1509 for a sum of Rs.2759/- under the discount scheme.  He used those shoes but shoes fell apart and on 30.05.2015, he deposited the shoes with OP No.1 against the receipt.  He was told by Op No.1 that he could buy another item of the same value but petitioner refused on the ground that he did not need any other item and requested Op no.1 to arrange another pair of shoes or refund the payment of the said shoes.  Because the respondents did not agree to his request to refund the money, he filed the complaint.  His complaint was dismissed by the District Forum on the following grounds:

“7.        Complainant has relied on retail invoice Ex. C1 for proving that he purchased the pair of shoes from OP1 on 24.01.2015 by paying the discounted price of Rs.2759/-. MRP of the sold shoes was Rs.4599/-. The case of the complainant is that this pair of shoes was purchased on discount of 40% on MRP in offer during festive offer annual sale period. On Ex. C1 itself, it is mentioned through clause No.4 that warranty against manufacturing defects in the product exists for only three months from the date of purchase. That warranty as per clause No.5 printed on Ex. C1 itself, can be availed against manufacturing defects, but not due to mishandling of the product. As per clause No.2 of Ex. C1 product once sold can only be exchanged from the store from where they were purchased. This exchange offer as per clause No.3 of Ex. C1 permissible only, if the product returned in an unused condition within 15 days from the date of purchase. However, the case of the complainant is that after purchase of the shoes in question on 24.01.2015, the defect in the shoes developed on May 2015 i.e. after more than four months of purchase. This defect occurred when shoes were used by complainant and as such, terms and conditions of exchange offer printed as condition No.2 and 3 on Ex. C1 not applicable in this case because exchange offer permissible only on return of the shoe in unused condition. So the case in hand governed by condition No.4 printed on Ex. C1.

8.         As already referred above, as per condition No.4, the warranty exists against the manufacturing defect for only three months from the date of purchase and as such, it is obvious that this warranty was to remain in force until 23.04.2015 because shoes were purchased on 24.01.2015. Until 23.04.2015, no defect in the pair of shoes in question developed, but the same developed in May 2015 as per claim of the complainant and as such, certainly submissions advanced by Sh. Sachin Seth, Advocate for OP1 to OP3 has force that complainant is not entitled to any relief because the warranty period even expired before May 2015.

9.         It is well settled that terms and conditions printed on the retail invoice bill are binding on the contracting parties, who are complainant and OP1 in this case. So complainant cannot wriggle out of the condition No.4 of Ex. C1. As warranty period was already over and as such, adamancy of the complainant in not accepting the goodwill gesture offer denudes him from claiming the replacement of the shoes

now. Even if the complainant may have sent letter Ex. C3 through postal receipt Ex. C4 or even Ex. C5 and Ex. C6, but despite that he is not entitled for any relief except to seek return of the pair of shoes deposited by him with OP1. Even if through Ex. C2, the broken shoes accepted for claim, despite that complainant is not entitled for any claim of refund or replacement of the shoes because such replacement or refund sought after the warranty period of three months.”

3.         The order of the District forum was challenged by way of appeal in the State Commission.  The said appeal was also dismissed.  The Appellate Court in the impugned order has held as under:

“ 9. It was argued by the complainant, who is appearing in person that he was not aware of the terms and conditions with regard to the product in question and he was never asked to sign the terms and conditions, therefore, the terms and conditions are not binding upon the complainant of which the Ops are taking the benefit. The copy of the terms and conditions has been placed on the record before the District Forum as Ex. C-1 and photocopy has been placed on the record of the appeal and according to term No. 4, warranty against the manufacturing defect for the products exist only for 3 months from the date of purchase. However, the complaint was lodged by the complainant after the expiry of three months. In case we accept the version given by the complainant that warranty terms and conditions were not got noted from him as his signatures were not taken on the warranty terms and conditions, then what are other warranty terms and conditions upon which he is seeking the replacement. On the one side, he is taking the benefit of warranty terms and conditions for replacement and refund and at the same time, he is showing ignorance about the said terms and conditions, therefore, the complainant cannot blow hot and cold in the same breath. The terms and conditions were printed at the bottom of the receipt and the receipt has been produced by the complainant in his own evidence and once the terms and conditions are printed on the invoice itself then there is presumption that the complainant had the knowledge about the said terms and conditions. Since the complaint was lodged by the complainant after a gap of more than 3 months, therefore, his case for replacement or refund is not covered under the warranty terms. As per the averments made by the Ops in their written reply they had offered that he can purchase any other item of the same value to which the complainant did not opt but was adamant for refund or replacement, which is not covered under the warranty terms and conditions, therefore, District Forum was justified to dismiss the complaint of the complainant being beyond the scope of warranty terms and conditions. We agree with the findings so recorded by the District Forum.”

4.         The order of the State Commission is impugned before me on the ground that respondents have committed deficiency in service by not refunding the money to him.

5.         I have heard argument of the petitioner at length.   The powers of this Commission under section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 are very limited as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs Rubi (Chandra) Dutta vs M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd., (2011) 11 SCC 269, as under:

“Also, it is to be noted that the revisional powers of the National Commission are derived from Section 21 (b) of the Act, under which the said power can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order, and only then, may the same be set aside. In our considered opinion there was no jurisdictional error or miscarriage of justice, which could have warranted the National Commission to have taken a different view than what was taken by the two Forums.  The decision of the National Commission rests not on the basis of some legal principle that was ignored by the Courts below, but on a different (and in our opinion, an erroneous) interpretation of the same set of facts.  This is not the manner in which revisional powers should be invoked.  In this view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the jurisdiction conferred on the National Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Act has been transgressed.  It was not a case where such a view could have been taken by setting aside the concurrent findings of two fora.”

6.         From the perusal of the impugned order, it is apparent that findings have been given on the facts proved on record i.e. the terms and conditions mentioned on the receipt which are binding on the parties.  The petitioner who has appeared in person has failed to point out that State Commission has exceeded its jurisdiction while disposing of the appeal or has wrongly exercised its jurisdiction. I do not find any illegality in the impugned order.

7.         There is no merit in the Revision Petition and same is, accordingly, dismissed.