Order No.      02        Date:  05.11.2019

            Today is fixed for Admission Hearing.

            Complainant files the instant complaint against the Manager, World of Titan, a Unit of Titan Company Ltd. having its showroom at 75C, Park Street, Kolkata-700 016 and another on the allegation of deficiency in service, unfair trade practice and fraudulent practice for not awarding flat 20%  discount of  the sale value of Titan wristwatches.

 Heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant who submits that an Advertisement was published in general by the Titan Company Ltd. to offer 20% flat discount to all the intending purchasers on and from 10.05.2019 to 12.05.2019 and in pursuant to the said advertisement complainant had been to the showroom of OP-1 and purchased  a Raga wristwatch being No.2583WMO1F, but the complainant could not avail 20% discount, though she purchased the wristwatch within the stipulated period of the advertisement. It is the further contention of the Ld. Advocate for the complainant that on the following day she had been to the showroom of OP-1 and requested the Sales Manager to refund the discounted amount but she was compelled to purchase another wristwatch being No.NJ87001SMO1AC against payment after adjustment of discount amount of earlier purchase of Raga wristwatch. The OP-1 practiced fraud upon the complainant and compelled to purchase a new wristwatch which tantamount to unfair trade practice.

Having heard the Ld. Advocate for the complainant as well as on perusal of the complaint petition coupled with its annexure thereto, we find that initially the complainant availed 10% discount in respect of Raga wristwatch and the remaining discount of 10% was adjusted against purchase of second wristwatch being No. NJ87001SMO1AC. According to her own will the complainant purchased the second wristwatch after adjustment of 10% discount of the earlier purchase of Raga wristwatch.  Therefore, there is no question of unfair trade practice on the part of the OP-1. Moreover, Consumer Forum have no power to deal with any allegation of fraud practice, though mentioned in para – 6 of the complaint petition. Therefore, we are not inclined to entertain the complaint. Accordingly, the complaint is not admitted and dismissed in limine.

            In view of the above observation, the Misc. Application U/s 11 (2) (b) of the CP Act, 1986 is not tenable and rejected.

            Thus, MA No. 588 of 2019 is disposed of