DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
North 24 Pgs., BARASAT
C.C. No./339/2022
Date of Filing Date of Admission Date of Disposal
01.11.2022 04.11.2022 12.08.2024
Complainant/s:- | SRI SUJOY PODDAR Son of Late Himanshu Bikash Poddar of 29B Abdul Latif Street, P.O. + P.S. – Belgharia, District – North 24 Parganas, West Bengal – 700056. -Vs.- |
Opposite Party/s:- | 1. THE MANAGER / STORE-IN-CHARGE, LENSKART_KOLKATA_PATULI, 1/8, Block – D – Ground Floor, BAISHNABHATA PATULI TOWNSHIP, PATULI, KOLKATA – 700094, WEST BENGAL, P.S. PATULI POLICE STATION. 2. DEALSKART ONLINE SERVICES PVT. LTD., 39/1B, N. S. C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA – 700040, WEST BENGAL, P.S. REGENT PARK POLICE STATION. 3. LENSKART SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD., PROPERTY NO. 29 / 24 / 2, 25 / 2 / 1, 30 / 4 / 1, 5 / 1, 6 / 1 / 1, 6 / 1 / 2 REVENUE ESTATE OF VILLAGE BEGAMPUR, KHATOLA, GURUGRAM, HARYANA – 12204, P.S. BADSHAPUR POLICE STATION. |
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Daman Prosad Biswas……….President.
:- Sri. Abhijit Basu…………………. Member.
JUDGMENT /FINAL ORDER
Complainant alleged that on 02/08/2022 he went before O.P No. 1 for purchase of frame for eye glass then representative of O.P No. 1 informed that there are buy 1 get 1 offer and for that purpose membership is required by paying some fees.
On 08/08/2022 Complainant again went to the Show room of O.P No. 1 and paid Rs. 5,188/- and took two frames with one copy of order summary.
On the next date he got the Tax Invoice through his e-mail and found that cost of the two frame after giving 50% discount alongwith GST has claimed as Rs. 4,480/- and two years membership charge after giving 50% discount alongwith GST charged Rs. 708/- and Complainant paid the same amount of Rs. 5,188/- in favour of O.P No. 1.
Complainant further alleged that O.P No. 1 told that membership is required to get the offer so bill regarding membership should be prepared first but O.P No. 1 issued the bill relating to membership charge after issue of bill regarding sale of two frames. So it is an instance of deficiency in service.
He prayed for refund of GST amounting to Rs. 588/-, refund of membership fee amounting to Rs. 600/-, compensation amounting to Rs. 30,000/-, cost of the case amounting to Rs. 15,000/- and other reliefs.
O.Ps not yet appeared in this record nor filed W/V.
Case is running ex-parte against O.P No. 1-3.
Contd. To page no. 2 . . . ./
: : 2 : :
C.C. No./339/2022
Decisions with Reasons:-
We have carefully gone through the petition of complaint filed by the Complainant, affidavit-in-chief filed by the Complainant, BNA filed by the Complainant.
This Commission has heard the argument from the Ld. Advocate for the Complainant.
On perusal of copy of invoice in respect of sale of two frame we find that O.P No. 1 after giving the discount of 50% charged GST and took Rs. 4,480/-, Complainant has no allegation regarding this transaction.
On perusal of another copy of invoice in respect of membership we find that O.P No. 1 after giving the discount of 50% charged GST and took Rs. 708/- from the Complainant.
When O.P No. 1 told the Complainant that to get the benefit of buy 1 get 1 scheme membership of O.P No. 3 is required and the Complainant has to pay the membership fee and O.P No. 1 also give 50% discount over the membership charge and Complainant was agreed by the said proposal.
In view of said proposal Complainant paid membership fee. Complainant got 50% discount over the membership fee and after discount he paid Rs. 600/- as membership charge and thereafter paid GST amounting to Rs. 108/- and in total he paid Rs. 708/-.
Complainant has no grievance about the said charges.
Complainant alleged that as to why the O.P No. 1 prepared bill regarding membership charges on 09/08/2022 where as the tax invoice regarding sale of two frame was prepared on 08/08/2022.
On careful perusal of aforesaid documents we find that Complainant did not sustain any loss. Complainant paid the amount which he was agreed. The preparation of tax invoice is the subject matter of O.P No. 1 but by the aforesaid transaction Complainant did not sustain any loss. Due to business policy or due to technical reason or due to any other reason O.P No. 1 might have prepared the membership bill on next date of sale of frame. But in the present case Complainant failed to established that he sustained loss or injury by the preparation of membership bill on the next date i.e. on 09/08/2022.
Contd. To page no. 3 . . . ./
: : 3 : :
C.C. No./339/2022
The aforesaid act of the O.P No. 1 or other Opposite Parties does not amounts to deficiency in service.
On perusal of record we find that Complainant is the consumer and O.Ps are the service provider.
Having regard to the aforesaid discussion it is clear before us that Complainant has not able to established his grievance by sufficient documents beyond reasonable doubt.
Accordingly, Complainant is not entitled to relief as per his prayer.
In the result, present case fails.
Hence,
It is
Ordered:-
That the present case be and the same vide no. CC/339/2022 is dismissed ex-parte against the Opposite Parties but without any order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as per CPR, 2005.
Dictated and Corrected by me
President
Member President
