Date of filing: 2-8-2017 Date of order : 20-11-2017
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM ::
KADAPA Y.S.R DISTRICT
PRESENT SRI V.C. GUNNAIAH, B.Com., M.L., PRESIDENT
SMT. K. SIREESHA, B.L., LADY MEMBER
Monday, 20th day of November, 2017
CONSUMER COMPLAINT No. 64 / 2017
V. Narendra, S/o Anjaneyulu,
Aged about 29 years,
D.No.4/241, Nagtarajupeta, Kadapa. … Complainant.
Vs.
- The Manager, M/s Lot Mobiles Ltd.,
Shop No.9-10-15, D. No.4/475,
Nagarajupeta, Ayyaswamy Pilla Street,
Indian Oil Petrol Bunk, Kadapa.-516 001.
- The Manager, Customer Support,
Apple India Pvt. Ltd., No.24, 19th Floor,
Concorde Tower C,
UB City, Vittal Malya Road,
Bangalore-560 001. ….. Opposite parties.
This complaint coming for final hearing on 14-11-2017 in the presence of Complainant appeared as in person and Opposite party no.1 appeared as in person and Opposite party no.2 called absent and remained ex-parte on 23-10-2017, and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following :-
O R D E R
(Per Sri V.C. Gunnaiah, President),
1. The complainant filed this complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short herein after called as C.P. Act) praying this forum to direct the Opposite parties to pay cash back amount of Rs.6,000/-, to pay Rs.20,000/- for mental agony and to pay Rs.4000/- towards costs of the complaint.
2. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows :-
The complainant saw an advertisement in Sakshi Telugu News Paper on 14-2-2017 that on purchase of apple company I-phone 16 G.B. an amount of Rs.6,000/- will be refunded. So he purchased Apple Company I-Phone from O.P.no.1 on 14-2-2017 by swiping his debit card on enquiry with O.P.no.1 people that he would get cash back amount of Rs.6,000/- within 90 days. But he did not get cash back of Rs.6,000/- or even credited to his account even after 90 days. He enquired with O.P.no.1 and complained that he did not receive the cash back . They told him that it would come or enquire with customer care of company. Then the complaint on 1-7-2017 enquired at HDFC bank people, they told him that amount was not credited as he was not eligible for cash back amount. He also sent mails for the cash back but he did not receive the amount from the O.Ps. Hence, the complaint for the above reliefs.
3.O.P.no.1 filed written version.
4.O.P.no.1 denied the allegations in the complaint and called upon the complainant to prove all of the them.
It is further averred the complainant purchased mobile phone without any enquiry from O.P.no.1 mobile store people about the cash back offer and simply after purchasing the said mobile phone enquired the cash back offer. O.P.no.1 shop people clearly explained that HDFC debit card is not eligible for the said cash back offer. As per the news paper advertisement it is very clear that the cash back offer is eligible on selected cards only. The complainant taking advantage of the news paper advertisement which was given by O.P.no.1 filed this complaint with all false allegations. The complainant purchased the mobile phone knowing that the HDFC debit card is not eligible for cash back offer. He never approached the O.P.no.1 after purchase of the said mobile phone. The allegations in this regard is false. The complainant filed this case for wrongful gain no deficiency on the part of this O.P. and no bonafides the claim of the complainant. Hence, complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
5. O.P.no.2 not filed written version and remained exparte.
6. No oral evidence has been adduced by the parties. But on behalf of the complainant Ex. A1 to Ex.A4 are marked. No documents filed on behalf of the O.P.no.1
7. Heard arguments on both sides.
8. The points that arise for determination are :-
i) Whether is there any deficiency in service on the part of the
opposite parties pleaded by the complainant ?
ii) Whether the complainant is entitled for the claims against
opposite parties, if so to what extent ?
iii) To that relief ?
9. Points 1 and 2 :- It is contended by complainant that on seeing the advertisement given by opposite party no.1 in Sakshi Telugu Daily News Paper regarding cash back offer of Rs.6,000/- on purchase of Smart Mobile phone as per Ex. A4, he purchased the mobile phone under Ex. A1 bill by swiping his HDFC debit card on 14-2-2017 from O.P.no.1 and he was told that cash will credit to his account within 90 days, but no cash was returned to him. Therefore the O.P.s caused deficiency in service by giving false and misleading advertisement in paper regarding purchase of smart phone and caused lot agony to him as such he is entitled for the reliefs.
10. Per contra it is contended by O.P.no.1 that HDFC debit card is not eligible for cash back offer of Rs.6,000/- and the same was explained to the complainant when he approached after purchase of the mobile phone and no deficiency of service on their part as complainant already known that HDFC debit card is not eligible for cash back offer. Therefore the complainant is not entitled for the reliefs.
11.There is no dispute in this case that complainant purchased the smart mobile phone i.e., apple company I-phone from O.P.no.1 on 14-2-2017. According to complainant he purchased the smart phone from O.P.no.1 shop for Rs.20,000/- on seeing the advertisement as per Ex. A4 on 14-2-2017 itself with fond hope that he would get cash back amount of Rs.6,000/- and he paid Rs.20,000/- by Swiping his HDFC debit card . This fact of paying the amount of Rs.20,000/- by Swiping HDFC card has been admitted by O.P.no.1. The complainant filed Ex.A1 bill dated 14-2-2017 to show that he purchased the mobile phone from O.P.no.1 and paid Rs.20,000/- of mobile by Swiping HDFC debit card as per Ex.A2 on 14-2-2017. Ex. A3 shows he sent mail to the customer care about not getting cash back offer of Rs.6,000/- as per advertisement Ex. A4. The contention of O.P.no.1 is that the cash back offer of Rs.6,000/- applies only on selected cards. But a perusal of Ex.A4 advertisement in Sakshi Telugu Daily News
Paper 14-2-2017 does not disclose which cards are eligible which cards are not eligible. The complainant paid the price of mobile by Swiping HDFC debit card and O.P.no.1 accepted the same. If really HDFC card is not selected for that offer the same would have been mentioned in Ex. A4 advertisement itself stating that HDFC cards are not eligible. As per counter opposite party no.1 admitted the newspaper advertisement was issued by O.P.no.1 and mentioned the offer is eligible on selected cards only. If such is the case the advertisement in Ex. A4 should have contained which bank cards are eligible for the offer. No details in the advertisement about the eligible cards or non eligible cards. It is mentioned only cash back offer of Rs.6,000/- on selected cards which is very very vague and misleading the general public and the consumers and such advertisement is unfair trade practice. The complainant having seen the advertisement and having enquired with the shop, purchased the smart mobile phone from O.P.no.1 accepting the offer of O.P.no.1 that he would get cash back of Rs.6,000/- by purchasing the smart phone and purchased the same but cash was not credited to his account or paid to him. The offer made by the O.P.no.1 with regard to the smart mobile phone purchased by complainant as per Ex. A4 advertisement dt. 14-2-2017 in Sakshi Daily Telugu News Paper is very very misleading and against to the fair trade practice. As such we hold that there is deficiency in service on the part of O.P.no.1 in selling the mobile phone of O.P.no.2 company and not in returning the cash back of Rs.6,000/- as per advertisement Dt. 14-2-2017 in Sakshi Daily Telugu News Paper. Hence complainant is entitled for the cash back of Rs.6,000/- and Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint. Accordingly points 1 and 2 are answered in favour of complainant.
11. Point No.3:- In the result, the complaint is allowed, directing the opposite parties no.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.6,000/- (six thousands only)towards cash back offer for the purchase of mobile phone from O.P.no.1 of O.P.no.2 company and to pay Rs.2000/- (two thousands only)towards mental agony and Rs.1,000/-(one thousand only) towards costs of the complaint within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 6% p.a. till realisation.
Dictated to the Typist, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum, this the 20th day of November, 2017.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses examined.
For Complainant: NIL For Opposite party : NIL
Exhibits marked for Complainant : -
Ex. A1 P/c of the bill Dt. 14-2-2017.
Ex. A2 P/c of HDFC card swiping bill dt. 14-2-2017.
Ex. A3 P/c of mail to Customer Care.
Ex. A4 P/c of Sakshi news paper advertisement.
Exhibits marked on behalf of the Opposite party : - Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Copy to :-
- V. Narendra, S/o Anjaneyulu,
D.No.4/241, Nagtarajupeta, Kadapa.
2) The Manager, M/s Lot Mobiles Ltd.,
Shop No.9-10-15, D. No.4/475,
Nagarajupeta, Ayyaswamy Pilla Street,
Indian Oil Petrol Bunk, Kadapa.-516 001.
3)The Manager,Customer Support,
Apple India Pvt. Ltd.,No.24, 19th Floor,
Concorde Tower C,UB City, Vittal Malya Road,
Bangalore-560 001.
&&&
P.R.
