PAWAN KUMAR vs LUXMI GENERAL STORE

THIS is an appeal against the order dated 19.11.1998 passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bathinda (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the opposite party No. 2 (hereinafter called opposite party No. 2) was the manufacturer of Ray-Ban goggles and had given an offer in the Business World Edition, 22nd June - 6th July, 1998 (copy attached as Ex. C-4 with the complaint) to the general public on the commemoration of its 60th anniversary, ''Get a Ray-Ban, Gift a Ray-Ban'' scheme, whereby opposite party No. 2 had given an offer to its fans for buying one piece of Ray-Ban goggles and one piece to get free. The complainant being a fan of Ray-Ban, after reading the offer from the Business World went to the shop of opposite party No. 1 (to be called opposite party No. 1 in this appeal also) at Bathinda, who was the authorised dealer of Ray-Ban sunglasses and desired to purchase one piece of Ray-Ban goggle as per the scheme on 20th June, 1998. He showed the photocopy of the Business World to the opposite party No. 1. Opposite party No. 1 showed all models of Ray-Ban Goggles available with them. Out of those models, complainant selected one piece of Ray-Ban goggle "Cromax Model". The opposite party No. 1 quoted the price as Rs. 3,790/-, with a discount of 10%. The complainant then purchased one piece of Ray-Ban goggle (Cromax Model) for Rs. 3,411/- vide bill dated 20.6.1996 (attached as Ex. C-2 with the complaint) and the opposite party gave him warranty with the bill. Complainant then demanded one piece of goggle free as per the scheme and on this demand, the opposite party No. 1 had asked him to get it on the next day, i.e. on 21.6.1998 as the same was not available with the opposite party on that day. The complainant believed the opposite party No. 1 as the latter was known to him. On 21.6.1998 he went to the opposite party No. 1 to collect the free piece of Ray-Ban goggle. On that visit also the opposite party No. 1 had asked him to come again after 2-3 days as the free piece of Ray-Ban had not been received by them. He came back and then again after 2-3 days he visited the opposite party No. 1 and on that visit the opposite party No. 1 flatly refused to supply him free piece of Ray-Ban goggle, which amounted to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party No. 1. Complaint was filed before the District Forum for issuance of directions to the opposite party No. 1 to provide the complainant one free piece of Ray-Ban goggle "Cromax model" and to pay him compensation of Rs. 5,000/-. Separate notices were issued to the opposite parties. Registered AD notice of opposite party No. 2 was received back with the report of the Postal Authorities that the opposite party No. 2 had left without disclosing any further address. On that report, Counsel for the complainant was directed to provide the correct address of the opposite party No. 2 so that he could be summoned; but the complainant did not supply the correct address of the opposite party No. 2 and as such opposite party No. 2 was ordered to be deleted from the arrays of the opposite parties vide order dated 27.10.1998. Opposite party No. 1 filed the reply and contested the complaint. It was admitted that on 20.6.1998 complainant had purchased from opposite party No. 1, one piece of Ray-Ban goggle (Cromax Model) for Rs. 3,411/- vide cash memo Ex. C-2 and at that time warranty Ex. C-3 was issued to him. But it was denied that its sale was made to the complainant under the scheme as alleged by the complainant. With regard to the scheme, it was pleaded that the opposite party No. 2 did not give any offer in the Business World Edition 22nd June - 6th July, 1998 for its fans for buying one piece of Ray-Ban goggle and get one free as alleged. It was also denied that the scheme was available on 20.6.1998 when the purchase was made by the complainant. It was further pleaded in the reply that the scheme of the opposite party No. 2 had come into effect in Punjab from 26.6.1998 and M/s. Barnala Trading Co., Ludhiana was the distributor of the Ray-Bank goggle for the State of Punjab and the said distributor had received the consignment under the scheme of the opposite party No. 2 vide Invoice No. 294 dated 24.6.1998 (Ex. R-3) and a part of the said consignment under the scheme was delivered to opposite party No. 1 by the aforesaid distributor on 27.6.1997. As such no scheme was available on 20.6.1998 as alleged by the complainant.

After hearing the Counsel for the parties and having gone through the record, District Forum dismissed the complaint with costs, which were assessed at Rs. 1,000/-. Hence this appeal.

ONLY point which needs determination in this case is as to whether the alleged scheme had come into force on 20.6.1998 or thereafter. It is clearly proved from the record of the case that the alleged offer to give one piece free of Ray-Ban goggle with purchase of one Ray-Ban goggle had come into force with effect from 26.6.1998 and not with effect from 20.6.1998. The complainant/appellant has relied upon the advertisement in the Business World Edition 22nd June - 6th July, 1998 (Ex. C-4) in support of his plea. But this advertisement does not help the complainant as its perusal goes to show that the offer was not given by the opposite party No. 2. It was rather a news report recorded by a reporter, namely, Sh. Nanditta Mathur and as such it could not be considered as a advertisement/offer on behalf of opposite party No. 2 and thus it was not binding upon the opposite party. In order to explain its position, opposite party No. 1 had produced a copy of newspaper "The Tribune" dated 26.6.1998 (Ex. R-4). On its front page appeared the advertisement on behalf of opposite party No. 2. Since this advertisement appeared for the first time in the newspaper on 26.6.1998, so it could be deemed to have been valid with effect from 26.6.1998 and not with effect from 20.6.1998 as alleged by the complainant. Even in the Business World Edition relied upon by the complainant/appellant it is revealed that the offer was valid from 20.6.1998 as this edition of Business World is of 22nd June - 6th July, 1998. Thus, it cannot be inferred in any manner that this scheme was in force from 20.6.1998. Another factor which goes against the complainant is that cash memo (Ex. C-2) of the goggle purchased by the complainant itself goes to show that the opposite party No. 1 had allowed a discount of 10% on the sale of goggle. But the advertisement in the Business World (Ex. C-4) and in the newspaper (Ex. R-4) does not contain any condition that anybody on purchase of one piece of Ray-Ban goggle would get discount of 10% as well. The plea of the appellant/complainant that the scheme was in force from 20.6.1998 is without any foundation. In view of our discussion made above, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is dismissed, however without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.