Consumer Protection – Respondent purchased three vouchers each of Rs.5998/-, and in total paid Rs.17,994/-, of the holiday scheme vouchers advertised by the appellant – Appellant addressed e-mail dated18.09.2012 to the respondent specifically adverting to the referral scheme and informing that by making referrals of his ‘friends and associates’, the respondent could avail the gifts which were on offer – Respondent claimed that he was entitled to three free gifts, viz., (i) a laptop; (ii) a mobile phone; and (iii) a 42" LED television – Allowed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Sikar – Confirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (SCDRC) and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) – On appeal, held: Under the scheme propagated by the appellant, the “free gifts” were contingent on the subscriber making referrals – Significantly, the e-mail is of 18.09.2012, a day after the respondent is alleged to have received communication from the representative of the appellant – Both from the scheme as well as from the e-mail dtd. 18.09.2012, it is evident that subscriber was not entitled, as a matter of right, to the “free gifts” merely on purchasing the holiday vouchers – Free gifts were contingent upon number of referrals made by the subscriber which, admittedly, were not made by the respondent – Order of the District Forum was manifestly contrary to the terms of the agreement between the parties – SCDRC and NCDRC erred in confirming the same – Impugned judgment of the NCDRC set aside – Complaint filed by the respondent stands dismissed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Under the scheme which was propagated by the appellant, the “free gifts” were contingent on the subscriber making referrals. Though the counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the e-mail dated 18 September 2012 was not part of the record of the District Forum, the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant controverted this by adverting to the reply filed on behalf of the appellant before the District Forum in which there is a clear reference to the e-mail. Significantly, the e-mail is of 18 September 2012, a day after the respondent is alleged to have received a communication from the representative of the appellant. Both from the scheme as well as from the e-mail dated 18 September 2012, it is evident that a subscriber was not entitled, as a matter of right, to the “free gifts” merely on purchasing the holiday vouchers. The free gifts were contingent upon making referrals which, admittedly, were not made by the respondent. The directions of the District Forum, which were affirmed by the SCDRC and NCDRC will result in a manifestly absurd outcome. The order of the District Forum was manifestly contrary to the terms of the agreement between the parties. Both the SCDRC and the NCDRC have erred in confirming the order of the District Forum. The impugned judgment and order of the NCDRC dated 28 November 2018 is set aside. The complaint filed by the respondent shall accordingly stand dismissed. [Paras 7, 8][474-F-H; 475-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.