IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Decision :   10-09-2014

First Appeal No. 831/14.

( Arising out of the order dated 19-02-2014 passed in Complaint Case No.447/11 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum – III (Janak Puri), New Delhi )

In the matter of

Shakti Vats,

S/o Sh. Prem Prakash Vats

R/o GH-13/527, Paschim Vihar,

New Dellhi-110087

.….Appellant

Versus

1.  The Director

      Team Promotion Pvt. Ltd.

      D-160, LGF, Sector 26,

      NOIDA, UP.

2.   The Director

      Reebok India Ltd.

      Signature Tower B, Ground Floor,

       South City, Phase-I,

       Gurgaon, Haryana.

3.   The Manager,

       Reebok Show Room,

       27, Rattan Bagh,

       Main Rohtak Road,

       Delhli-110041.

                                     …..Respondent

CORAM

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Salma Noor, Member

N P Kaushik Member (Judicial)

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?

2.     To be referred to the reporter or not?

Justice Veena Birbal, President

Judgment

1. Heard on Admission.
2. The appellant herein was the complainant before the District Forum.  He had filed a complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging therein that a scheme was floated by the Reebok in the market wherein an offer was given that whosoever would buy Reebok products for a sum of Rs.10,000/- till first week of July 2010, would be sent to Bangkok. It is alleged that the complainant was allured by the said advertisement and he purchased product of Reebok worth Rs.10,000/- from respondent No. 3, a Reebok showroom. Thereafter, he submitted all the documents alongwith DD of Rs.5,000/- with respondent No.1 for tour to Bangkok. After completing all the formalities the appellant/complainant was asked to give three suitable dates for journey with a minimum gap of 10 days in each date.  Accordingly, he gave the dates suitable to him. However, on one pretext or the other tour was postponed.  Appellant has alleged that he had fixed meeting with his business clients in Bangkok and Pataya and had also made tour arrangements but nothing could be materialized. The appellant had served a legal notice on the respondents but no response was given to the same. Thereupon he had filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging having suffered a loss of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of loss of visit to Bangkok.
3. Respondents did not appear before the District Forum. On account of non appearance of any representative on behalf of respondents they were proceeded ex-parte.
4. In the ex-parte evidence complainant had filed his own affidavit and two web. He had also filed copies of three letters sent by him to respondent no. 1 & 2 mentioning the dates which were suitable to him for travel.
5. The Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 19.2.2014 on the grounds that the necessary documents substantiating his claim had not been placed on record. 
6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order the present appeal is filed.
7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant has contended that the District Forum did not appreciate the material on record and the order passed is illegal.
8. It is contended that the respondents were proceeds ex-parte before the District Forum. It is further contended that the appellant had produced relevant documents before the District Forum.  The District Forum did not appreciate the documents provided by the appellant.  It is submitted that there is enough material on record which makes out the case of the appellant and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
9. The relevant portion of the impugned order rejecting the complaint is reproduce as under :-

“The complainant has failed to place any document on record to show that any such scheme was floated by Reebok that on purchase of goods worth Rs.10,000/- from any authorized showroom of the Reebok, the purchaser would be sent to Bangkok.  Not even a single document issued by any of the respondents or circulated or published by any of the respondents to this effect is filed by the complainant.  He submitted that a DD of Rs.5,000/- was deposited by him. No proof of deposit of the draft or any photocopy of the draft is filed by him.  The three letters written by him to the OPs are the documents created by him in his favour, hence those cannot be relied upon as proof of his complaint.  There is no letter or written communication from any of the respondents asking him to supply the three dates convenient to him for journey.  Even on the web pages of ‘team promotion’ no such offer is given.  On one page the products being sold by ‘team promotion’ are enumerated and on second web page there is a photograph where it is written that fly to Bangkok for five night six days ‘Bangkok Bonanza’.  From this photograph we cannot make out that any such scheme was floated by Reebok.  The complainant has not even filed any proof that he purchased the products of Reebok for Rs.10,000/- from respondent no. 3.  We have no reason to disbelieve that complainant was cheated, but the complainant has failed to prove his allegations because he has not filed any documentary evidence in support of his allegations.”

1. Even in this appeal, the appellant has not filed any document to substantiate that any such scheme as alleged by him was floated by the Reebok.  Even the copy of the DD of Rs.5,000/- which according to him was submitted by him to respondent No. 1 has not been produced.  Even the details of alleged demand draft have not been given. The only document which the appellant had filed before the District Forum were copies of three letters written by him to the respondents about the dates alleged to have been given by him for travel purposes.  The same have been rightly rejected by the District Forum by observing that the same were created by him in his own favor and no reliance has been placed on aforesaid letters.  The appellant has also not produced on record the letter alleged to have written by him to the respondent asking for the three dates convening to him for tour, as has been alleged.  The District Forum has considered the web pages produced by the appellant and the same have also been rightly rejected. 
2. There is also a delay of 138 days in filing the Present appeal which has not been properly explained.  In the application for condonation of delay stand taken is that the relevant case file was misplaced by his counsel and was traced in August, 2014 whereas in affidavit annexed with the appeal he has stated the same was traced out in July, 2014.  Even the exact date on which the file was given to their counsel and the exact date of the file having traced out by the counsel is also not mentioned.  The grounds stated in the application for condonation of delay are also not believable.

        Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.