Tripura

StateCommission

A/19/2016

Store Manager & In-Charge Big Bazaar - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri. Maran Sarkar - Opp.Party(s)

Sri. S.M Chakraborty, Mr. S. Bhattacharya, Mr. A.Das

05 Jan 2017

ORDER

State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura.

 

Case No.A.19.2016

 

 

 

1. Store Manager & In-charge,

Big Bazaar, Agartala

M.L. Plaza, Mantribari Road,

Agartala, West Tripura,

 

 

… … … … Appellant/Opposite Party

 

 

 

Sri Maran Sarkar,

S/o Late Nanigopal Sarkar,

of Badharghat, Matripally,

P.O. A. D. Nagar, P.S. West Agartala,

District - West Tripura, Pin – 799003.

… … … … Respondent/Complainant

 

 

 

Present

 

Mr. Justice U.B. Saha,

President,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mrs. Sobhana Datta,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

Mr. Narayan Sharma,

Member,

State Commission, Tripura.

 

 

 

For the Appellant: Mr. S. M. Chakraborti, Sr. Adv. & Mr. Suman Bhattacharya, Adv.

For the Respondent: Mr. Utpal Das, Adv.

Date of Hearing & Delivery of Judgment: 05.01.2017.

 

 

 

 

 

J U D G M E N T [O R A L]

 

 

U.B. Saha,J,

This appeal filed by the appellant-opposite party, Store Manager & In-charge, Big Bazaar, Agartala under section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is directed against the Judgment dated 16.03.2016 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala, in case No.CC-03/2015 whereby and whereunder the Ld. District Forum allowed the complaint petition directing the opposite party, the appellant herein, to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- to the respondent-complainant for unfair trade practice and deficiency of service and also to pay Rs.2,000/- as cost of litigation. Amount is to be paid within two months, if not paid within the aforesaid period, it will carry interest @9% per annum.

Heard Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, Ld. Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Suman Bhattacharya, Ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant-opposite party, Store Manager & In-charge, Big Bazaar, Agartala (hereinafter referred to as Big Bazaar). Also heard Mr. Utpal Das, Ld. Advocate appearing for the respondent-complainant. As the respondent-complainant is present in person, we have also heard him at length.

Facts needed to be discussed are as follows:-

The appellant-Big Bazaar as a business organization had issued an advertisement for exchanging old items with effect from 22.02.2014 to 30.03.2014. In response to the advertisement, the respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as complainant) had exchanged some old household items like old newspaper, old cloth and toys etc. and earned Rs.9,000/- and above. Thereafter, he had purchased some articles from the Big Bazaar. After purchase of articles, an amount of Rs.7,730/- was due by which he wanted to purchase items like mobile, bicycle etc. which had been mentioned in item No.6 of the advertisement, but as those items were not available, he could not purchase those items. In the result, the exchange amount of Rs.7,730/- was lying unspent with the Big Bazaar. Upon enquiry, the complainant came to know that the items like mobile, bicycle, dining table etc. were not available at Big Bazaar from the beginning of the period of exchange and that itself is nothing, but an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. Being aggrieved by the action of the Big Bazaar, the complainant wrote a letter to Mr. Kiran Kolay, Store Manager of Big Bazaar, Agartala on 07.05.2014, but could not get any reply. Thereafter, again he took up the matter with the higher authority of the Big Bazaar. The Big Bazaar by its letter dated 10.07.2014, informed the complainant that as per the terms and conditions of the exchange scheme points No.11 of the scheme, the offer was subject to change without prior written notice and however, the scheme was available on the products availability at the concerned store. In the same letter, the Big Bazaar also wanted to maintain relationship with him even after expiry of the offer period and was ready to give certain special discount on purchase of selected items, but the complainant did not meet with the Big Bazaar authority, Agartala and filed the complaint petition before the Ld. District Forum under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The appellant, Big Bazaar by way of filing its written statement admitted regarding the exchange of household items by the complainant and earning of amount by the complainant as claimed by him, but according to Big Bazaar, the amount due was Rs.7,420/- instead of Rs.7,730/- as claimed by the complainant. It has also been admitted by the Big Bazaar that exchange items like mobile, bicycle, dining table etc. were not available at the Big Bazaar Store, Agartala, for which, they have requested the complainant to visit their store at Agartala and also offered him a special discount on purchase of selected items, but the complainant did not visit the Big Bazaar Store at Agartala.

It is further case of the appellant, Big Bazaar that in the complaint petition, the complainant did not ask for any compensation, but the Ld. District Forum allowed the complainant petition directing the appellant for paying compensation holding that there was unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of the appellant, Big Bazaar, which is against the evidence.

As the facts are almost accepted by the parties, except the findings of Ld. District Forum by the appellant. Admittedly, there was no evidence before us that the complainant expressed his willingness for purchase of the mobile, bicycle and dining table within the stipulated period mentioned in the advertisement i.e. 22.02.2014 to 30.03.2014. It also appears from the record that the complainant first time had approached to the Big Bazaar by its letter dated 07.05.2014. It is also admitted position that the complainant in his complaint petition did not claim any compensation. At this stage, the Ld. Sr. Counsel of the appellant proposed to settle the matter amicably between them and the claimant also agreed to the proposal. Thus, we have asked the parties to amicably settle the matter as the complainant did not approach the Big Bazaar within the exchange period.

As both the appellant and the complainant have settled the matter amicably, we are not entering into the merit of the case. 

In view of the settlement between the parties and as agreed to, the impugned judgment is modified to the extent that the appellant, Big Bazaar shall pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant within 45 days from the date of furnishing by the complainant his Bank Account Number as well as PAN Card Number to the appellant, Store Manager & In-charge, Big Bazaar, Agartala for his mental sufferings and litigation cost, if the aforesaid amount is not paid within 45 days from the date of furnishing the Bank Account Number and PAN Card Number by the complainant, it will carry interest @9% per annum. Accordingly, it is ordered.

The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment is modified as indicated above.

Send down the records to the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala.

    

 

MEMBER State Commission Tripura MEMBER State Commission Tripura PRESIDENT State Commission Tripura