Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted thatop is the dealer of Samsung Computer, Laptop and other electronic products and carried on business at IT Arena, 6, C.R. Avenue, 1st Floor, Shop, Kolkkata – 700072 wherefrom complainant purchased the Samsung Laptop on 29.07.2013 in the name of his brother Arunava Sen from Samsung-e-store at 11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata – 700087.
Fact remains that Samsung company at the relevant time provided with an offer that if any one purchases a Samsung Laptop he will get Samsung Galaxy Tab 2(P3100) at Rs. 7,000/- with discount and being allured and satisfied about that advertisement of Samsung Company, complainant purchased a Samsung Laptop being Model No. AMDNP-355VSC-S05IN invoice No. BRI/IT/05715/13-14 at a price of Rs. 36,200/- on 29.07.2013 in the name of his younger brother as a giftbut only to get the benefit of Galaxy Tab 2(3100) at Rs. 7,000/- discount as per offer of the Samsung Company.
Fact remains that after purchase of the said Laptop, he received one coupon code vide Coupon Code No. DVY9KHJJ and Coupon Code was valid up to 15.09.2013. But complainant failed to activate the Coupon Code and made a complaint to Samsung India e-store customer service No. 1800 103 8384 for a number of time but they did not respond properly. Thereafter complainant sent one complaint to Samsung India e-store vide complain No. 8457200910 on 06.09.2013 but till now they did not respond and on calling to the customer service centre they never entertained the call and was not willing to help the complainant.
Finding no other alternative, the complainant filed this complaint for redressal being deceived by the Samsung Company and pray for proper relief.
On the other hand op no.2 by filing written statement submitted that practically op no.2 has no negligence and deficiency and if complainants are able to prove that on the basis of the Coupon Code, he is entitled to get any such benefit in that event that should be carried by the op no.1 the Samsung Company but all other allegations against op no.2 are fabricated, without any basis and op no.2 is known as Bard Roy Infotech Pvt. Ltd.
On the other hand op no.1 by filing written statement submitted that complainant is not a consumer of op no.1 and present case is filed malifidely and there was no negligence and deficiency on the part of the op and they have stated that complainant must have to prove the negligence and deficiency on the part of the op no.1, but all other allegations of the complainant is denied by the op and prays for dismissal of this case.
Decision with reasons
On proper evaluation of the complaint and written version and also considering the title head of the complaint, it is clear that Arunava Sen is complainant no.1 and Abhijit Kar is complainant no.2 and complainant no.1’s case is that he purchased the Laptop in the name of his younger brother that is proved from the receipt and complainant no.2 has filed authorized letter of Arunava Sen before this Ld. Forum to conduct the case. So, it is clear that complainant no.2 is the competent person to conduct the case and to swear an affidavit.
Further from the documents, it is clear that there was an offer in case of purchasing a Laptop and fact remains that complainant no.2 purchased the Laptop in the name of complainant no.1 and got a Coupon Code No. DVY9KHJJ and Coupon Code was valid up to 15.09.2013. But peculiar factor is that ops have not denied that fact.
On proper assessment and evaluation of the materials on record including the evidence-in-chief and question, it is clear that complainant no.2 contacted with op no.2 number of times and also wrote letter to the op for non-recording of the letter by the Samsung Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. Company.
On the contrary Samsung Electronics reported to the complainant that his product has been added to his wish list and plan will notify him once it is available at the Samsung e Stores and complainant was asked to buy the project from Samsung e-Stores Company and it was related to recognize made by the complainant to add Galaxy Tab 2(P3100) to which wish list. Further it was reported by the Samsung e stores that they will notify the complainant once, it is available at the Samsung e stores.
Subsequently by an email Samsung e stores intimated the complainant that they have verified the fact that a Laptop being Sl. No. J9ug98FD1A5SDH was purchased by the complainant and there is special discount Coupon Code to buy Galaxy Tab 2(P3100) at an unbelievable price and the Coupon Code entitles the complainant to get discount of Rs. 7,000/- on purchase of Samsung Galaxy Tab 2(P3100) from www.samsungindiaestore.com and Coupon Code number was also noted as DVY9KHJJ and Coupon Code was valid up to 15.09.2013 from the date of issuance and once Coupon is expired, it cannot be used.
So considering the document of Samsung e stores that is op no.1’s store, it is clear that coupon was received by the complainants on purchase of the said Laptop. Complainant reported the matter for not receiving the same when Samsung e stores reported him as and when it shall be available at Samsung e stores it shall be reported to the complainant and complainant again and again requested the op Samsung to inform him wherefrom it shall be purchased. Against that op/Samsung reportedthrough https//samsungindiaestore.com that it will be serviced by Savex Computers Ltd, a national distributor of Samsung. But anyhow the ops Sansung India did not report whether it was in India Stock or not.
So, considering all the above fact, it is clear that by an advertisement, op no.1 made such an advertisement to that effect if one purchases that such Laptop he shall have to get one Coupon Code with said Laptop and on purchase of a Galaxy Tab at Rs. 7,000/- shall be discounted and fact remains that complainant purchased the Laptopit is admitted by the Samsung. Computer was handed over to the complainant that has been admitted by the Samsung e store. But Samsung India failed to prove whether that stock was available in their Samsung e-Stores or not. Truth is that complainant sent information to the op for purchasing the same but ultimately op became silent and did not report wherefrom he shall have to get it and though op no.1 admitted through their e store that said coupon code valid was up to 15.09.2013 but within that period no such Galaxy Tab was handed over and that was reported to the complainant.
So we are convinced to hold that the advertisement is full of misrepresentation and it is one kind of deceitful act on the part of op and fact remains that Samsung India Ltd deceived the complainant even after purchase of the said Laptop but complainant did not get the benefit of the said Coupon and complainant failed to purchase Galaxy Tab and did not get such discount and it is no doubt a deceitful act on the part of the op and in view of the above fact and circumstances we are convinced to hold that complainants are being deceived by the op for which the present complaint should allowed against op no.1 with cost.
But in this regard that there is no liability on the part of the op no.2 because op no.2 is the dealer of the op no.1 and he shall has no negligence so the complaint fails against op no.2.
In the result, the complaint succeeds in part against op no.1.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is allowed on contest against op no.1 with cost of Rs. 10,000/-
Op no.1 is hereby directed to deliver Galaxy Tab 2 (P3100) on receipt of the price of the said Galaxy Tab 2 (P3100) after deducting Rs. 7,000/- what the complainants are entitled to get as per Coupon Code issued in favour of the purchaser complainant and if op no.1 fails to supply the same in that case op no.1 shall have to pay Rs. 7,000/- to Arunava Sen the purchaser of the Laptop that is complainant no.1 within 15 days from the date of this order along with cost and cost shall be paid to Arunava Sen complainant no.1.
The order shall be complied by the op no.1 within 15 days from the date of this order failing which penal interest @ Rs. 200/- shall be assessed against op no.1 till full satisfaction of the decree and if the penal interest is collected in that it shall be paid to the present Forum.
If it is found that ops are unwilling to comply the order in that case op shall be prosecuted u/s 27 of the C.P. Act 1986 for which further penalty and fine may be imposed.
