West Bengal

Alipurduar

CC/21/2021

Tarun Brahma - Complainant(s)

Versus

AGS Retail (India) Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Sri Badal Kr. Brahma

07 Feb 2023

ORDER

The brief facts of the complainant case, is that, the complainant is a permanent resident within the jurisdiction of this Commission. The O.Ps run a business to sale several household items including clothing irrespective of men, woman and child throughout the separate state and all over the country by opening outlet in different place. The entire management and operation controlled by O.P No. 1 and there is an outlet at Falakata and O.P No. 2 is the manager of that outlet.  That on 23/01/2020 the complainant visited the outlet at Falakata and observing the various lucrative advertisement boards in different places. The complainant also find the same lucrative advertisement inside the outlet also in different display board.  The complainant take decision to purchase some kids items which are available at 50% discount and some items are displayed more or less 50% discount and some items sold that by one get one free meaning by 50% discount. The complainant purchased one item from the display of by one get one free when the complainant reached the billing counter he found the items in the bill at Sl. No. 3 are wrong and misleading because the same items are displaying as buy one get one free which may can interpret as 50% discount. When the complainant raised the objection about this matter then the staff of the O.P No. 1 stated that this offer has been no more but the display showing different thing. That a part the complainant also found that the plastic carry bag which has been given by the outlet to carry the purchase items also charged included in the bill which is prohibited by the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment when the complainant raised the objection about price of plastic carry bag then O.P No. 2 not speak even a single word and agreed to deducted Rs. 9.99/- but then also they charged Rs. 0.01/- for the carry bag. Being aggrieved by the office bearer of the office outlet the complainant sent a notice to local outlet on 01/03/2021 by Registered Post and after the receiving the said notice the office bearer call the complainant instead the given reply and tried to settle the issue and dominating upon the complainant. The cause of action arose on 23/01/2021 firstly and then against last on 01/03/2021 the complainant suffering huge mental pain, agony and harassment and kids can not measure of consideration of money. The complainant claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation in total out of which complainant as claimed Rs. 30,000/- for loss suffer and Rs. 1,00,000/-   for compensation of his mental pain and agony and Rs. 20,000/- for his litigation cost.

The O.Ps have contested this case by filing written version and they have denied all the allegation made by the complainant. They have stated that the cash memo was issued in favour of Mr. T. Barman but not the present petitioner. So this petitioner is not the consumer in this case. They further stated that due to the celebration of the 26^th  January the big sale days was observing by the O.Ps and upto 50% discount was provided. In no occasion the particular self from where the frock was picked up by the complainant running any offer as to by one get one free. There are some other shelves which selling the product under offer buy one gets one free. They further stated that the offer buy one get one free can not be interpret as 50% discount when there is involvement of merchandise product particularly there are manufacturing cost over head expense and estimated on the cost as fixed and variable basis depends on number of units to be sold. The cost of the product purchased by the complainant as alleged is Rs. 148/- and the O.Ps took Rs. 99/- after giving discount to that product for clearing stock. Regarding carry bag the O.Ps stated that the cost of the carry bag Rs. 10/- and the O.Ps were given discount of Rs. 9.99/- and the only Rs. 0.01/- was mentioned in the bill which is nothing but a inventory of carry bag and moreover the said amount of Rs. 0.01/- is practically never brought till in the final bill amount of the consumer concealing the view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court the total bill amount was Rs.1,376/- which indicates that Rs. 0.01/- was not included in the said bill. It also reflect that the consumer gave Rs. 1,501/- and got refund of Rs. 125/- from the O.Ps according to the complainant will not get any benefit from this case.

            In this context, the following issues are necessarily come up for the proper adjudication of the case.

                                               

                                             POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION

1. Is the complainant a consumer u/s. 2(7)(ii) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 ?
2. Has this Commission jurisdiction to try the instant case?
3. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the O.P?
4. Is the complainant entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for?

 

     DECISION WITH REASONS

            Considering the nature and character of the case all these points are interlinked to each other as such all the points are taken up together for consideration for the sake of brevity and convenience. The case has been filed u/s. 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the complainant.

Point No. 1:- The complainant purchased some articles from O.Ps concern from their outlet of Falakata and there is an allegation of deficiency in service and making excess demand of price money of the product.  According to the provision of C.P. Act, 2019 the complainant is the consumer as per law.

Point No. 2:- It is seen from this case record as well as the evidence of the complainant that the complainant resides and the office of the O.P situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Commission. Therefore, this Commission has territorial jurisdiction to try this case as per section 34(d) of the C.P. Act, 2019.

Point Nos. 3 & 4:- Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience.

In this case there are two allegations made by the complainant one is that he purchased one frock from the outlet of O.P No. 2 with an offer of by one get one free and he purchased only one but the O.Ps did not give the 50% discount of that product. According to him that interpretation buy one get one free is that the price is 50% on one item and another point raised by the complainant is that for the purpose of carry bag the O.Ps took Rs.0.01/- from the complainant which is barred by law as the carry bag shows that the advertisement of the O.Ps company.

 The complainant has filed the kids garments wherein a tag of the O.Ps company are there which reveals that it was the offer item buy one get one and the MRP is Rs. 148/-. We find that the interpretation of buy one get one is that if the complainant purchases one item under this scheme he will get another items of the same thing  free.  But if he purchases the items buy one get one scheme and if he takes only one item under the scheme that no means that 50% discount calculation on it as he has purchased only one instead of two. This interpretation is not correct as stated by the complainant. 50% discount is the separate scheme which can not be applied the scheme buy one get one. When the complainant purchased the said kids garments he was entitled to get another one in the same price. But he did not take the second one from that scheme. The cash memo of O.P No. 2 shows that instead of the price of Rs.148/- the O.Ps have claimed one Rs. 99/- from the complainant that means he has given the discount on it. As the complainant has taken only one items under the scheme of buy one get one the O.Ps have given the discount on it which is within the scheme discount upto 50% but the complainant can not claim the exact 50% from that items as buy one get one is not interpret the 50% discount. If the complainant is taken only one item. So, we find on this point complainant’s claim is not correct and he is not entitled to get any benefit from this case.

Regarding the cost of carry bag we find that one carry bag was given to the complainant after purchased which the advertisement of the O.P company and it was the settled law that if the cost of the carry bag was taken of any company he can not advertised his company on that carry bag here in this case it appears that the cost of carry bag was Rs. 10/- as mentioned of serial no. 5 of the cash memo and after giving discount only Rs. 0.01/- was added with the bill of the complainant. It also appears from the bottom that bill that the said Rs. 0.01/- was also refunded to the complainant.  It appears that the net amount payable was Rs. 1,376/- complainant paid Rs.1,501/- and balance Rs. 125/- was refunded to the complainant which means that only Rs. 1,376/- amount taken from the complainant and cost of the carry bag is not included there. So the complainant allegation regarding cost of carry bag is not proved here as the cost of the carry bag has already been adjusted from the bill and the O.Ps did not receive any amount for the carry bag. So this allegation of the complainant is not proved from his documents.

O.Ps have alleged that the name of the customer Mr. T. Barman and the case has been filed by one Tarun Brahma so T. Barman and the Tarun Brahma  are not the same person. We find that in the cash memo it is written T Barman and one mobile number is there. It appears from the letter issued by the complainant to the O.P No. 2 that mobile number is mentioned there which is the same as mentioned in the cash memo. So T. Barman has written in the cash memo is nothing but a typographical mistake. The O.Ps will benefited from it.

After considering all facts and circumstances we find that the allegation made by the complainant has not been proved. He has missed interpret the provision of buy one get one although he get some discount on that product. Regarding carry bag the O.Ps charged Rs. 0.01/- at first and at the time of final payment they less the said Rs. 0.01/- form the final bill that means the carry bag O.Ps charged nothing.  The O.Ps did not violate the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this regard. The complainant is not entitled to get any relief from this case as he failed to prove of his allegation and there is no deficiency in service from the side the O.Ps and the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation as prayed for.

            Thus all the points are disposed of accordingly.

            Hence, for ends of justice; it is;-

 

                                                                    ORDERED

           that the instant case be and the same is dismissed on contest without costs.