Chandigarh

StateCommission

A/32/2021

Acer India Pvt. Ltd. - Complainant(s)

Versus

Vipin Chawla - Opp.Party(s)

Shaveta Sanghi Adv.

05 May 2021

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

 

Appeal No.	:	32 of 2021
Date of Institution	:	05.04.2021
Date of Decision	:	05.05.2021

Acer India Private Limited, Embassy Heights, 6^th Floor, No.13, Magrath Road, Bangolre-560025 through its Managing Director.

                                      ...  Appellant/opposite party

Versus

Vipin Chawla son of Sh.Gurmukh Das Chawla, resident of House No.499 (ground floor) CHB MIG Red Flats, Sector 61,  Chandigarh.

…. Respondent/complainant

BEFORE:             JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

                             MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER

                             MR. RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER

 

Present through Video Conferencing:-    

                             Ms.Shaveta Sanghi, Advocate for the appellant.

                             Sh.Devinder Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.

 

JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT          

                   In this appeal, the appellant/opposite party has assailed the order dated 19.02.2021, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-I, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission), whereby consumer complaint bearing no.392 of 2020 filed by the respondent/complainant was partly allowed in the following manner:-

“…In view of the above discussion, the present consumer complaint succeeds and the same is accordingly partly allowed. OP is directed as under :-

1. to immediately provide all the offered items i.e. 1 year accidental damage protection + 2 year extended warranty + antivirus & data recovery software + BT headphone/speaker;
2. to pay an amount of ₹15,000/- to the complainant as compensation for causing mental agony and harassment to him;
3. to pay ₹10,000/- to the complainant as costs of litigation.

This order be complied with by the OP within thirty days from the date of receipt of its certified copy, failing which, it shall make the payment of the amount mentioned at Sr.No.(ii) above, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of this order, till realization, apart from compliance of remaining direction…”

2.           The District Commission noted down the following facts of the consumer complaint filed by the respondent/complainant:-

“…Briefly stated allegations are, complainant intended to purchase a laptop and was attracted with the advertisement of laptop manufactured by the OP. In the advertisement on the website, OP had quoted “DAY OFFFER” i.e. in case complainant purchased the laptop on a specific day from the OP, it would provide special benefit. Averred, on 13.8.2020, the OP offered on its webpage Acer day offer includes 1 year accidental damage protection + 2 year extended warranty + antivirus & data recovery software + BT headphone/speaker. Relying upon the information, on 13.8.2020 itself, complainant purchased a laptop from the official website of the OP and paid a sum of ₹92,999/- through debit card.  The laptop was received on 17.8.2020, but, without the benefits referred above. The complainant contacted the customercare of the OP through email dated 2.9.2020 and received reply dated 3.9.2020 informing him to purchase the extended warranty to get the offered items.  The complainant alleged he was allured by the OP by uploading attractive offers, as detailed above, but was deceived with the non supply of the items to him which amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, the present consumer complaint for directing the OP to provide the offered items, as detailed above; pay compensation of ₹50,000/- and ₹22,000/- as litigation expenses.…..”. 

3.           The appellant/opposite party responded to the complaint, which was noted down by the District Commission, as under:-

“ OP contested the consumer complaint and filed its written reply. The crux of its reply is, 9^th September is celebrated every year by the OP as “Acer Day” and the offer was not valid on 13.8.2020. Hence, the complainant was not entitled for the product freebies and such other benefits. In the offer so uploaded on the website, it was also mentioned “For more details on the purchase or redemption of offers, visit us at www.shopacer.co.in.” Maintained, the complainant misunderstood the offer and, therefore, he is not entitled to the benefits, which were to be given on extended warranty. The complainant had not visited the website for details. Denied there was any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on its part.  On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended….”

4.           In the rejoinder filed, the respondent reiterated all his averments and controverted those of the appellant.
5.           The parties led evidence, in support of their case, before the District Commission.
6.           The District Commissions after hearing the contesting parties had passed the impugned order, partly allowing the consumer complaint, by holding as under;-

“However, according to the OP it was valid on a specific day i.e. 9^th September every year or say in the first week of September. Now let us scrutinize the own documents of the OP.

 

 Annexure C-1 (at page 5)  is the material downloaded from the website and the relevant portion of Acer Day offer is reproduced below :-

 “ACER DAY OFFERS : 1 Year Accidental Damage Protection + 2 Year Extended Warranty + Antivirus & Data Recovery Software + BT Headphone/Speaker.”

However, there is a mention in very small words for more details on the purchase or redemption on offers visit us at www.shopacer.co.in. This was the material uploaded on the date of purchase and in the offer referred supra it was nowhere mentioned said offer is to be extended in the first week of September or say Acer Day which falls on 9^th September every year. It was only advised, in very small words, to visit the site for details on purchase or redemption of offers. Everything was detailed in the uploaded offer and it was all in highlighted words and only a passing reference was made for more details to visit the website.

A consumer has to see the uploaded offer and price of the laptop which nowhere speaks of offer being valid on a particular day i.e. 9^th September or say first week and if it was so, then why it was put on the website on 13.8.2020, i.e. the date when the complainant placed order or parted with the money, is not understandable. Certainly it is a misleading advertisement and now the OP is pulling down from the said offer after alluring the consumer into such benefits and charging a hefty amount of ₹92,999/-. It is a situation where OP is fowling from its own nest. First alluring a consumer with the aforementioned freebies/benefits and then backtracking from the same in the manner referred above clearly shows the OP is spitting and then licking on the same site.  Certainly, it tantamounts to unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

The complainant vide his email dated 2.9.2020 (Annexure C-3) had afforded an opportunity to the OP to despatch the offered articles, but, it had replied vide email dated 3.9.2020 (Annexure C-4) when the extended warranty is purchased then the complainant will get the offered freebies. It is again deception on the part of the OP.  It was nowhere mentioned on the site on 13.8.2020 when the said offer was uploaded. Thereafter the OP after pulling this down again want to extract money of extended warranty in the name of freebies offered. The OP has taken dwindling stand first of all putting the freebies offered on the website and then pulling it down and again bargaining the complainant to go in for payment of extended warranty. All these facts not only constitutes unfair trade practice on the part of the OP and may also not be good for its business health, being a deceiver to the consumer and in the habit of changing colour according to the situation. The complainant has put in affidavit and documents.  OP had also filed affidavit.  However, we do not find any substance in the stand of the OP.”

7.           Hence this appeal.
8.           We have heard the contesting parties and gone through the material available on the record, very carefully.
9.           The only short question which needs to be decided in this case is, as to whether, the online offers in question so made by the appellant i.e. “ACER DAY OFFERS”  on its webportal towards purchase of the laptop, was to be extended only in the first week of September or say Acer Day which falls on 9^th September every year or on any day of purchase of the laptop? It may be stated here that neither before the District Commission nor before this Commission, the appellant has placed on record any document; wherefrom it could have been revealed that the said offers were to be made available to the general public buying laptops, in the first week of Acer Day which falls on 9^th September every year, only. On the webportal of the appellant also, wherefrom the complainant had purchased the laptop in question, it has nowhere been found mentioned that the said offers were to be made available only on specific days aforesaid. On the other hand, it was in a very candid manner written on the webportal page of the appellant as “ACER DAY OFFERS”. A plain reading of the said words leave no doubt that it was the offers which were to be made available to the customers buying laptop on any day, till such offers are reflecting on the webportal under the heading “ACER DAY OFFERS”.
10.           To defeat the claim of the respondent, it has also been contended with vehemence by Counsel for the appellant that since the respondent failed to click the link with regard to further information provided under the said offers i.e. “For more details on the purchase or redemption of offers, visit us at www.shopacer.co.in”,  as such, he has wrongly assumed that the said offers were also available on the day of purchase of laptop by him. We do not agree with the said contention for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.

                   It is significant to mention here that the appellant failed to place on record the information which was to be generated out, had the respondent clicked on the aforesaid option on webportal i.e. “For more details on the purchase or redemption of offers, visit us at www.shopacer.co.in”. Since, the case of the appellant was not considered by the District Commission on that count also, as such, it was having a very fine opportunity to convince this Commission in this appeal, by placing on record cogent and convincing documents i.e. the information which would have been generated after clicking the aforesaid option, showing that the said offers were to be made available only in the first week of September or say Acer Day which falls on 9^th September every year or some specific days.

11.           Not only as above, it is also coming out from the record that the respondent had sent a detailed email dated 02.09.2020 (Annexure C-3) to the appellant with a request to extend the said offers, as he had purchased laptop from its webportal. In response to the said email, the appellant vide email dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure C-4) asked him to provide it the date of purchase of extended warranty in respect of the laptop in question, in order to extend the said offered freebies. In the email dated 03.09.2020, not even a single word has been mentioned by the appellant that the respondent was not eligible for the said offers because he had not purchased the said laptop in the first week of September or say Acer Day which falls on 9^th September every year. As such, now the appellant cannot wriggle out of the situation on flimsy grounds. It is therefore held that the appellant has failed to establish its case before this Commission also.  
12.           In this view of the matter, it is held that by not providing the offers aforesaid to the respondent, for which he was entitled to on the date of purchase of the said laptop, the appellant adopted unfair trade practice and  was also deficient in providing service. The District Commission was also right in holding so.
13.           For the reasons stated herein above, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the District Commission and the same is upheld. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.
14.           Consequently, miscellaneous application bearing no.294 of 2021 is dismissed with no order as to cost, having been rendered infructuous.
15.           Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of charge.
16.           The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion.

Pronounced

05.05.2021

 

Sd/-

[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]

PRESIDENT

 

 

Sd/-

(PADMA PANDEY)

          MEMBER

 

 

Sd/-

 (RAJESH K. ARYA)

MEMBER

Rg