State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Meghav Gupta vs Ferns N Petals on 20 October, 2015
Daily Order STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, U.T., CHANDIGARH First Appeal No. : 266 of 2015 Date of Institution : 16.10.2015 Date of Decision : 20.10.2015 Meghav Gupta son of Mr.Sunil Gupta, resident of House No.3304, Ground Floor, Sector 21-D, Chandigarh. ......Appellant/Complainant V e r s u s Ferns N Petals Private Ltd., FNP Estate, Ashram Marg, Mandi Road, Gadaipur, New Delhi 110030, through its Managing Director. ....Respondent/Opposite Party Appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. BEFORE: JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.), PRESIDENT. MR. DEV RAJ, MEMBER.
MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER Argued by:Sh.Abhinandan Pandhi, Advocate for the appellant.
PER MRS. PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER This appeal is directed against an order dated 09.09.2015, rendered by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum-II, UT, Chandigarh (hereinafter to be called as the District Forum only) vide which, it dismissed the complaint, filed by the complainant (now appellant), at the preliminary stage.
The facts, in brief are that on 24.08.2015, the complainant placed an order, on website of the Opposite Party, for delivery of 01 Red Roses Bouquet Regular, amounting to Rs.399/- at West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. It was stated that the complainant also opted for the same Bouquet, to be delivered on the midnight of 24.08.2015 and 27.08.2015 at an additional cost of Rs.250/-. As such, after discount, an amount of Rs.577/-, was paid online, via debit card through PayU Money Online portal. The said order was confirmed by the Opposite Party vide e-mail dated 25.08.2015. It was stated that since recipient of the Bouquet was out of station for a week, as such, the complainant sent an e-mail dated 25.08.2015, to the Opposite Party, for cancellation of the order (Annexure C-3) and sought refund of the amount deposited. To utter surprise of the complainant, he received an e-mail from the Opposite Party stating that although the order has been cancelled, but refund could only processed in the form of a limited time validity gift certificate/voucher against the equivalent amount, which could be redeemed for a future purchase. As such, an option was given to the complainant, to reschedule delivery of the order, to which he refused and requested for refund of the amount paid, but to no avail. It was further stated that the aforesaid acts of the Opposite Party amounted to deficiency, in rendering service, as also indulgence into unfair trade practice. When the grievance of the complainant, was not redressed, left with no alternative, a complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter to be called as the Act only), was filed, seeking various reliefs.
The complainant led evidence, in support of his case.
After hearing the complainant, in person, and, on going through the evidence, and record of the case, the District Forum, dismissed the complaint, at the preliminary stage, as stated above.
Feeling aggrieved, the instant appeal, has been filed by the appellant/complainant We have heard Counsel for the appellant, at the preliminary stage, and, have gone through the evidence, and record of the case, carefully.
The core question that falls for consideration, is, as to whether, the respondent/Opposite Party, was right, in rejecting the request of the appellant, for refund of the amount, in question, and in the alternative made an offer of a gift voucher, of the same amount. For proper determination of this question, relevant contents of the terms and conditions, agreed to between the parties, on 25.08.2015 at 01:24:56, as is evident from Annexure C-1, and placed on record by the appellant himself, are reproduced hereunder:-
"Note:-With effect from 1 December 2013, any refund it initiated by FNP in its sole discretion, in respect of cancellation of order by the customer, can only be processed in terms of Gift Vouchers. Gift Voucher shall be valid for 3 (three) months from the date of issue, and would apply on the Website catalogue (www.fnp.com). ..............."
Perusal of the aforesaid relevant contents of the terms and conditions/Note clearly reveal that from 1st December 2013, any refund if initiated by the respondent, in respect of cancellation of order by the customer/appellant, was to be processed in terms of Gift Vouchers only, validity whereof was 3 (three) months from the date of issue of the same. In the instant case, the product, in question, was booked by the appellant, in the month of August 2015 and not before 1st December 2013, and, as such, as per the condition/note afore-extracted, he was only entitled to a Gift Voucher, valid for 3 (three) months from the date of issue thereof, and not refund of the amount paid by him, in case of cancellation of order of the same. Needless to mention here that it is not a case of the appellant that he had booked the product, in question, with the respondent, before 1st December 2013 or that the terms and conditions thereof, were not supplied to him. On the other hand, the said terms and conditions have been placed on record, by the appellant only. However, despite knowing of the said condition/note, the complainant booked the said product, with the Opposite Party. It is settled principle of law that the parties are bound by the terms and conditions executed between them, and later on cannot wriggle out of the same, on flimsy grounds.
No doubt, reliance was also placed by the appellant, on the document Annexure C-4 i.e. Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ), to strengthen his case. It may be stated here that the District Forum rightly rejected the contention raised by the appellant, in this regard, on the ground that the appellant failed to prove, as to whether the said questions were answered by the respondent after 1st December 2013 or before that. Otherwise also, it is settled principle of law that once a contract, containing the detailed terms and conditions is executed between the parties, the same shall prevail over the former documents, if any executed in the shape of application, brochure etc. etc. Thus, in view of the above, in our considered opinion, the appellant was not entitled to refund of the amount paid by him, to the respondent, and on the other hand, was only entitled to a gift voucher, of the same amount, from it. It is therefore held that the respondent was neither deficient, in rendering service, nor indulged into unfair trade practice. The District Forum was also right, in holding so. The order of the District Forum, being legal and valid, is liable to be upheld.
In view of the above discussion, it is held that the order passed by the District Forum, being based on the correct appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting the interference of this Commission.
For the reasons recorded above, the appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed, at the preliminary stage, with no order as to costs.
However, it is made clear that the appellant is entitled to the gift voucher, of the amount, in dispute, if permissible under the terms and conditions aforesaid, for the limited period, mentioned therein, from the respondent.
Certified copies of this order, be sent to the parties, free of charge.
The file be consigned to Record Room, after completion Pronounced.
20.10.2015 Sd/-
[JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH (RETD.)] PRESIDENT Sd/-
(DEV RAJ) MEMBER Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY) MEMBER Rg