State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Lg Electronics Pvt Ltd vs Ratan Singh Negi on 27 September, 2024
First Appeal No. General Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and another 27.09.2024
237 of 2019 Versus
Sh. Ratan Singh Negi
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
Date of Admission: 02.07.2019
Date of Final Hearing: 09.09.2024
Date of Pronouncement: 27.09.2024
FIRST APPEAL NO. 237 / 2019
1. General Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd.
Head Office at Plot No. 51, Surajpur Kasana Road
Udyog Vihar, Greater Noida - 201210, Uttar Pradesh
through its Representative Sh. Sarwan Nigam S/o Sh. Surendra Rai Nigam
2. Veer Traders LG Shop
Azad Nagar Chowk, Opposite IDBI Bank
Roorkee, P.S. Kotwali, Gangnahar, Roorkee
District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Arun Uniyal, Advocate)
...... Appellants
Versus
Sh. Ratan Singh Negi S/o Sh. Khayat Singh Negi
Present Address: S.P. Rural Office, Near Roadways Bus Stand
Roorkee, P.S. Kotwali, Roorkee, District Haridwar
(Through: Sh. Yashwant Singh, Advocate)
...... Respondent
Coram:
Ms. Kumkum Rani, President
Mr. B.S. Manral, Member
ORDER
(Per: Ms. Kumkum Rani, President):
This appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 has been directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2019 passed by learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Haridwar (hereinafter to be referred as "The District Commission") in consumer complaint No. 250 of 2017, styled as Sh.
Ratan Singh Negi Vs. Veer Traders LG Shop and another, whereby the 1 First Appeal No. General Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and another 27.09.2024 237 of 2019 Versus Sh. Ratan Singh Negi consumer complaint was allowed and the appellants / opposite parties were directed to give prize to respondent / complainant as per the advertisement as well as 100% cash back, besides to pay Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation and costs.
2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in brief, are, as such that on 16.10.2017, on the occasion of Deepawali, the respondent / complainant had purchased a LG Television bearing No. 43UJ632T worth Rs. 62,000/- and Sound Bar worth Rs. 16,999/- from appellant No. 2 / opposite party No. 1. On the occasion of Deepawali, LG company had floated advertisement in different newspapers for giving prize in the event of purchase of their product. As per the advertisement, along with the LED Television purchased by the complainant, he was to be given Bluetooth speaker carrying two years' warranty; upto 100% cash back and Airtel Digital Set Box, as a prize, but the same were not provided by appellant No. 2, for which appellant No. 1 is also fully responsible. Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties to the consumer complaint, complainant approached the District Commission by way of filing consumer complaint.
3. The appellant No. 1 filed written statement before the District Commission, pleading that the model purchased by the complainant was not a part of the advertisement and that no such offer, as alleged by the complainant, was floated, hence the consumer complaint is liable to be dismissed. Almost similar written statement was also filed by the appellant No. 2 before the District Commission.
2First Appeal No. General Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and another 27.09.2024 237 of 2019 Versus Sh. Ratan Singh Negi
4. After hearing learned counsel for respondent / complainant and considering the written arguments filed on behalf of the appellants / opposite parties as well taking into consideration the material available on record, the District Commission passed the impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2019, thereby allowing the consumer complaint in the above terms. Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have preferred this appeal.
5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Although on the date of hearing, Sh. Yashwant Singh, learned counsel for respondent appeared, but this Commission had already passed an order on 06.03.2024 to proceed the appeal ex-parte against respondent. We have also gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of respondent / complainant.
6. The appellants have specifically mentioned in their respective written statements filed before the District Commission that the model so purchased by the complainant was not mentioned in the advertisement published in the newspaper, as such, no such offer / prize was to be provided to the complainant. The complainant has not filed any cogent and reliable documentary evidence to prove that the offer / prize, as alleged by him, was also available on the model purchased by him and the same was deliberately and wrongly not provided to him. The burden was upon the complainant to prove that the television model purchased by him was a part of the advertisement, but he has failed to discharge the said burden by producing evidence in that regard.
7. The District Commission has observed that the complainant had purchased the LED Television relying upon the advertisement 3 First Appeal No. General Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and another 27.09.2024 237 of 2019 Versus Sh. Ratan Singh Negi published in the newspaper. It may be true that on the basis of advertisement, the complainant had purchased the television, but if the model purchased by him was not mentioned in the advertisement, he was not at all entitled to the benefits of the scheme / advertisement. This apart, it is worth mentioning here that the product was purchased by the complainant on 16.10.2017 and if according to him, the required offer was not given to him, he should have refused to purchase the product or returned the same within a short span of time, but the same was not done. Thus, we are of the definite view that there has not been any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants in the instant matter.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, we are of the view that the impugned judgment and order has been passed by the District Commission without application of mind. We are also of the considered opinion that the complainant has failed to prove any deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. Hence, the impugned judgment and order passed by the District Commission is totally unjustified and the District Commission has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it by law and has acted with material illegality and infirmity, while passing the impugned judgment and order. Thus, we are inclined to interfere with the finding recorded by the District Commission. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be allowed.
9. Appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2019 passed by the District Commission is set aside and consumer complaint No. 250 of 2017 is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs of the appeal. The amount deposited by the appellants with this Commission, be released in their favour.
4First Appeal No. General Manager, LG Electronics India Pvt. Ltd. and another 27.09.2024 237 of 2019 Versus Sh. Ratan Singh Negi
10. A copy of this Order be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 / 2019. The Order be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for the perusal of the parties. A copy of this Order be sent to the concerned District Commission for record and necessary information.
11. File be consigned to record room along with a copy of this Order.
(Ms. Kumkum Rani) President (Mr. B.S. Manral) Member Pronounced on: 27.09.2024 5