DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PALAKKAD

Dated this the 31^st day May, 2023

Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President

            : Smt.Vidya A., Member           

            : Sri.Krishnankutty N.K., Member             Date of filing 22/08/2022   

CC/155/2022

N.Sudarsanan

Nandanam, E-5

Kailas Nagar, Pudussery

      Palakkad – 678 623                                                   -       Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

1.   Store Manager, Reliance Smart Bazaar

English Church Road

Palakkad

(By Adv. M.K.Sheela)

2.   Chairman, Future Retail Limited

Shyam Nagar, OFF-JV Link Road                            -        Opposite parties

Joeshwari East, Mumbai – 400 060

(Ex-parte)

O R D E R

By Sri.Krishnankutty.N.K., Member.

1.  Pleadings of the Complainant

      The complainant took on 12/02/2022 a Profit Club Membership scheme of the 2^nd opposite party by paying Rs. 10,000/- with which the complainant can make purchases worth Rs. 1,000/- per month for 12 months.  The 2^nd opposite party arranged a loan for the same from M/s Bajaj Finance Ltd.  He made purchase for Rs. 1,000/- on 12/02/2022.  Since the retail outlets of the 2^nd opposite party viz. ‘Big Bazar’ have been closed down, he could not make any purchase afterwards thereby causing financial loss to the complainant to the tune of Rs. 9,000/-  Though the issue was taken to the police by the complainant they could not settle the matter.  Hence this complaint is filed before this Commission seeking a total compensation of Rs. 20,000/-

2.   Notices were issued to the opposite parties.  1^st and 3^rd opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.  2^nd opposite party did not enter appearance and hence was set ex-parte.  The 1^st opposite party contented that he is an unnecessary party to this complaint as he was only an employee of the 2^nd opposite party working as store manager there.  Now he has resigned and joined the Reliance Smart Bazar.  3^rd opposite party also contended that his name has been unnecessarily included in the party array as he is working as senior manager of Reliance Industries and has nothing to do with the complaint.  

3.   Based on the pleadings of the complainant as well as opposite parties, the following issues were framed

1. Whether 1^st opposite party is a necessary party to the complaint and whether there is any deficiency in service on his part?
2. Whether there is any deficiency in service/unfair trade practice on the part of 2^nd opposite party?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
4. Reliefs if any as cost and compensation.

4.   As per IA 542/22 allowed by the Commission on 02/12/2022, the names of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties were corrected as below and the name of the 3^rd opposite party was deleted from the party array.

1. Reliance Smart Bazar

English Church Road, Palakkad

Rep. by Store Manager

2. Future Retail Ltd.

Shyam Nagar, OFF-J.V.Link Road

Jogeswari East, Mumbai – 400 060

Rep. by Chairman

5.   The complainant filed proof affidavit and marked Ext. A1 to A5 as evidence.  Ext. A1 is the copy of Big Bazar Profit Club membership card.  A2 is the tax invoice for purchase for Rs. 2,120/-.  A3 is the loan sanction slip from Bajaj Finance and A4 is the acknowledgement received by the complainant for his complaint lodged with Palakkad Town Police Station and A5 is the brochure of the said scheme.

          As directed by the Commission 1^st opposite party filed affidavit stating that the Reliance Industries is not connected to 2^nd opposite party (Future Retail Ltd.).  It is also stated that that the 2^nd opposite party is under insolvency and Bankruptcy proceedings and hence 1^st opposite party was also removed from the party array.     

6.  Issues 1 to 4

      From the narrations above, it is evident that the complainant could not utilize the facilities under the “Big Bazar Profit Club Scheme” because of the closing down of the outlets of the 2^nd opposite party causing financial loss to him.  As 1^st opposite party is only an employee of the 2^nd opposite party, the 1^st opposite party cannot be held responsible for the acts of the 2^nd opposite party.  3^rd opposite party has already been removed from the party array as he has no relevance to this complaint.  In the result, the failure of 2^nd opposite party to fulfill the promises declared under the said scheme can be seen as deficiency in service only on the part of 2^nd opposite party.  Therefore the complaint is allowed ordering the following reliefs

1. The 2^nd opposite party is directed to refund the unutilized portion of the scheme (Rs. 11,000/-) along with interest @ 10% per annum from 12/02/2022 till the date of payment.
2. The 2^nd opposite party is also directed to pay Rs. 20,000/- as compensation and
3. Rs. 5,000/- as cost.

The 2^nd  opposite party shall comply with the directions in this order within 45 days of receipt of this order, failing which 2^nd  opposite party shall pay to the complainant Rs. 250/- per month or part thereof until the date of payment in full and final settlement of this order.

Pronounced in open court on this the 31^st day May, 2023.

Sd/-        

                                                                             Vinay Menon V

                                                       President

                                                           Sd/-        

                                                           Vidya A

                                     Member   

 Sd/- 

                                                                                         Krishnankutty N.K.

                                                                                                Member

Appendix

Documents marked from the side of the Complainant:

Ext. A1: Copy of Big Bazar Profit Club membership card.

Ext. A2: Tax Invoice for Rs. 2120/-

Ext. A3: Loan sanction slip from Bajaj Finance.

Ext. A4: Acknowledgement for the complaint lodged with Palakkad Town Police

             Station.

Ext. A5: Brochure of Big Bazar Profit Club membership card.

Documents marked from the side of opposite party: Nil

Witness examined: Nil

Cost: Rs.5,000/-

NB: Parties are directed to take back all extra set of documents submitted in the proceedings in accordance with Regulation 20(5) of the Consumer Protection (Consumer Commission Procedure) Regulations, 2020 failing which they will be weeded out.