PBEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 30th day of June 2012
Filed on : 16/09/2011
Present :
Shri. A Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member
C.C. No. 498/11
Between
Sheeja Shibu, : Complainant
Poovathumparambil, (By Adv. K.M. Vivekanandan)
Eloor East,
Udyogamandal-683 501,
Ernakulam.
And
Showroom Manager, : Opposite party
Bismi Appliances, (By Adv. Albert Joseph,
Near International Staditum, Joseph & Parambil,
Kaloor, Kochi-17. PH Extn, road, Ernakulam
North, Kochi-18)
O R D E R
C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The opposite party published an advertisement in various news papers offering Philips speaker system worth Rs. 5,990/- and DTH accessories kits along with LED/LCD for the purchase on the date of advertisement and further offering one dinner set (26 pieces) worth Rs. 1599/- for every finance purchase. By attracting the said advertisement the complainant purchased two LCD from the opposite party’s shop. The total price was Rs. 58,000/- out of which the complainant paid Rs. 20,800/- in advance and the remaining amount she availed finance facility. But at the time of purchase the offered items were not supplied along with LCDs. The opposite party told the complainant that he is not entitled to get any of the offers. The acts of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The complainant is seeking the following directions against the opposite party.
i. To direct the opposite party to supply Philips speaker system worth Rs. 5,990/-, DTH accessories kit and 26 pieces of dinner set worth Rs. 1,599/- along with each of the LCD
set.
ii. to pay compensation for mental
agony and litigation costs to the complainant.
2. The version of the opposite party is as follows:
The opposite party has fully complied with and acted upon each and every item of offer published in the advertisement. The price tag was displayed on every LCD showing the special price of onam season. In the case of ‘finance purchase’ normally more price is charged compared to the cash purchase. But the opposite party was charging the same price from all customers including the ‘finance purchase’. In the instant case for ‘finance purchase’ the opposite party offered additional gift of one dinner set consisting of 26 pieces. Being a finance purchase the company, that apart only billed items will be brought to the ground floor for delivery to the customers. The complainant purchased two sets of LCD at the concessional rate of Rs. 29,000/- forgoing the gift items, speaker set, and hence, the petitioner is not entitled to claim speaker set. The additional gift coupon for DTH was given to the petitioner along with the LCD set. But it appears that the petitioner has not availed the said benefit. At the time of delivery, the stock of; dinner sets was exhausted and hence the party was advised to take delivery of the same on the next day, but the petitioner purposefully did not turn up to receive the same. The complainant has never made any complaint or any demand personally or issued any notice expressing any grievance with the opposite party or any deficiency in service. The petition is absolutely ill motivated and without any reason or basis. The complaint is to be dismissed with compensatory cost.
3. The complainant and the opposite party represented through counsel. Witness for the complainant was examined as PW1. Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. The witness for the opposite party was examined as DW1 and Exts. B1 to B4 were marked on the opposite party’s side. The counsel for the opposite party filed argument note. Heard both sides.
4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows:
i. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the offers as
published in Exts. A1 and A2 dailies?
ii. Compensation and costs if any
5. Points Nos. 1&2. The case of the complainant is that the opposite party did not comply with their offer published in various news papers to give Philips speaker system, DTH accessories kit and 26 pieces of dinner set along with the purchase of two LCD’s by the complainant. The opposite party averred that the LCD’s purchased by the complainant is in a concessional rate of Rs. 29,000/- forgoing gift items. At the time of delivery the stock of dinner set was exhausted and hence the complainant was advised to take delivery on next day. But the complainant did not turn up. At the same time no speaker system is billed.
6. Admittedly the complainant had purchased two LCDs from the opposite party’s shop. Ext. A1 and A2 Mathrubhumi and Manorama daily dated 08/09/2011 go to show that the opposite party has published an advertisement and as per the advertisement they offered Philips speaker system worth Rs. 5,990/- along with LED/LCD TVs, for the purchase on the date of advertisement itself. In another column in the same news papers it is stated that 26 (PCs) dinner set worth Rs. 1599/- is free on all finance purchase. During cross-examination DW1 agreed that the opposite party had complied with and acted upon the said advertisement. He further deposed that they did not issue any of the gifts mentioned in Ext. A1 to the complainant. Since the complainant purchased two sets of LCD at concessional rate of Rs. 29,000/- forgoing gift item, speaker system. But nothing is before us to show that the complainant agreed to abandone the gifts as averred by the opposite party. It is mentioned in Ext. A1 that the gift is available only with selected model. On a perusal of Ext. A1 such noting is seen in too fine a print and nobody can read and understand it. No where it is mentioned in Ext. A1 and A2 that the eligibility to get the gift is only for MRP rate of purchasing. The opposite party avered that they were ready to give dinner set to the complainant, due to non-availability of stock they advised the complainant to take delivery next day. But no evidence on record to substantiate the said aspect.
7. In view of the aforementioned discussions we are of the considered view that the complainant is entitled to get all gifts offered by the opposite party as per Ext. A1 and A2 along with LCDs. In the facts and circumstances we are not ordering any compensation. But the opposite party is liable to pay costs of the proceedings to the complainant since the complainant had to approach this Forum unnecessarily only due to the adamant attitude of the opposite party.
8. In the result, we allow the complaint in part and direct as follows:
i. The opposite party shall forthwith deliver Philips speaker system worth Rs. 5,990/-, DTH accessories kit and 26 pieces of dinner set worth Rs. 1,599/- as promised in Ext.A1 & A2 to each of the LCD’s to the complainant.
ii. The opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,500/- towards litigation costs to the complainant.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2012
Sd/-
C.K. Lekhamma, Member
Sd/-
A Rajesh, President.
Sd/-
Paul Gomez, Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Appendix
Complainant’s exhibits :
Ext. A1 : Mathrubhumi daily dt. 08-09-2011
A2 : Malayala manorama daily
dt. 08-09-2011
A3 : Copy of retail invoice
dt. 08-09-2011
Opposite party’s Exhibits : :
Ext. B1 : Copy of Retail invoice dt. 08-09-2011
B2 : Copy of Retail invoice dt. 08-09-2011
B3 : Copy of invoice dt. 08-09-2011
B4 : Terms and conditions
Depositions:
PW1 : Shibu V.P.
DW1 : Niclose N.A.
