PAWAN KUMAR Vs. LUXMI GENERAL STORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 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 ).

(2.) 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.

(3.) 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.