Supreme Court of India
TODAY MERCHANDISE PVT LTD & versus ANIL KUMAR LUTHRA on 8 January 2020
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 471
TODAY MERCHANDISE PVT LTD & ANOTHER
v.
ANIL KUMAR LUTHRA
(Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2020)
JANUARY 08, 2020
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUDAND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Consumer Protection – Respondent purchased three voucherseach of Rs.5998/-, and in total paid Rs.17,994/-, of the holidayscheme vouchers advertised by the appellant – Appellant addressede-mail dated18.09.2012 to the respondent specifically adverting tothe referral scheme and informing that by making referrals of his‘friends and associates’, the respondent could avail the gifts whichwere on offer – Respondent claimed that he was entitled to threefree gifts, viz., (i) a laptop; (ii) a mobile phone; and (iii) a 42" LEDtelevision – Allowed by the District Consumer Redressal Forum,Sikar – Confirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum(SCDRC) and the National Consumer Disputes RedressalCommission (NCDRC) – On appeal, held: Under the schemepropagated by the appellant, the “free gifts” were contingent onthe subscriber making referrals – Significantly, the e-mail is of18.09.2012, a day after the respondent is alleged to have receivedcommunication from the representative of the appellant – Both fromthe scheme as well as from the e-mail dtd. 18.09.2012, it is evidentthat subscriber was not entitled, as a matter of right, to the “freegifts” merely on purchasing the holiday vouchers – Free gifts werecontingent upon number of referrals made by the subscriber which,admittedly, were not made by the respondent – Order of the DistrictForum was manifestly contrary to the terms of the agreement betweenthe parties – SCDRC and NCDRC erred in confirming the same –Impugned judgment of the NCDRC set aside – Complaint filed bythe respondent stands dismissed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Under the scheme which was propagated by theappellant, the “free gifts” were contingent on the subscriber
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Amaking referrals. Though the counsel appearing on behalf of therespondent submitted that the e-mail dated 18 September 2012was not part of the record of the District Forum, the counselappearing on behalf of the appellant controverted this byadverting to the reply filed on behalf of the appellant before theDistrict Forum in which there is a clear reference to the e-mail.BSignificantly, the e-mail is of 18 September 2012, a day after therespondent is alleged to have received a communication fromthe representative of the appellant. Both from the scheme aswell as from the e-mail dated 18 September 2012, it is evidentthat a subscriber was not entitled, as a matter of right, to theC“free gifts” merely on purchasing the holiday vouchers. The freegifts were contingent upon making referrals which, admittedly,were not made by the respondent. The directions of the DistrictForum, which were affirmed by the SCDRC and NCDRC willresult in a manifestly absurd outcome. The order of the DistrictForum was manifestly contrary to the terms of the agreementDbetween the parties. Both the SCDRC and the NCDRC haveerred in confirming the order of the District Forum. The impugnedjudgment and order of the NCDRC dated 28 November 2018 isset aside. The complaint filed by the respondent shall accordinglystand dismissed. [Paras 7, 8][474-F-H; 475-A-B]
ECIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 80 of2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2018 of the NationalConsumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision PetitionNo. 2118 of 2018.
F
Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for theAppellants.
Shivam Sharma, Rishi Kapoor, Ankur Gogia, Ms. Manju Jetley,Advs. for the Respondent.
G
TODAY MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. ANIL KUMARLUTHRA
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of the National ConsumerDisputes Redressal Commission[1] dated 28 November 2018 in the courseof its revisional jurisdiction. The appellant advertised a holiday voucherscheme through its website. In September 2012, an employee of theappellant communicated the scheme to the respondent who expressedhis willingness to purchase holiday scheme vouchers. The terms on whichthe vouchers were available were indicated on the website of theappellant. The scheme envisaged that “free gifts” would be madeavailable to the purchaser against further referrals. The gifts werecontingent on the number of referrals made by the subscriber. Therelevant part of the scheme is reproduced below:
B
C
“
’’
3. The respondent purchased three vouchers each of Rs. 5998and thus paid a total sum of Rs. 17,994. On 18 September 2012, theappellant addressed an e-mail to the respondent specifically advertingto the referral scheme. The respondent was informed that, by makingreferrals of his ‘friends and associates’, he could avail of the gifts whichwere on offer, in the terms noted above.
F
4. The respondent moved the District Consumer RedressalForum[2], Sikar claiming that he was entitled to three free gifts, namely, (i)a laptop; (ii) a mobile phone; and (iii) a 42” LED television. TheDistrict Forum allowed the claim. The order of the District Forum wasconfirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum[3] and in G
1 NCDRC2 District Forum3 SCDRC
H
Arevision by the NCDRC. Monetary compensation has also been awardedin the amount of Rs 5,000 for mental torture, together with costs ofRs. 2000.
5. Mr Manish Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf ofthe appellant submitted that the offer which was made by the appellantBfor free gifts to a subscriber was conditional on referrals. The respondentdid not make any referrals. Moreover, it was urged that the order ofthe District Forum would result in a manifest absurdity since in terms ofits direction, a subscriber who had paid an amount of Rs. 17,994, wouldbe entitled to a cell phone, a laptop and a television set of a value farin excess of the amount which has been contributed. Learned counselCalso urged that the appellant had a serious objection to the jurisdiction ofthe District Forum.
6. On the other hand, it was urged by Mr. Shivam Sharma, learnedcounsel on behalf of the respondent that the e-mail dated 18 September2012 which has been produced in the counter affidavit was not a part ofDthe record of the District Forum. It was urged that an employee of theappellant had, in fact, made a representation to the respondent assuringthat free gifts would be handed over. Learned counsel urged that as aconsequence of the dispute, the services of the employee wereterminated which goes to establish the case of the respondent that suchEa representation was indeed made.
7. Under the scheme which was propagated by the appellant, the“free gifts” were contingent on the subscriber making referrals. Thoughthe learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submittedthat the e-mail dated 18 September 2012 was not a part of the recordFof the District Forum, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellanthas controverted this by adverting to the reply filed on behalf of theappellant before the District Forum in which there is a clear referenceto the e-mail. Significantly, the e-mail is of 18 September 2012, a dayafter the respondent is alleged to have received a communication fromthe representative of the appellant. Both from the scheme as well asGfrom the e-mail dated 18 September 2012, it is evident that a subscriberwas not entitled, as a matter of right, to the “free gifts” merelyon purchasing the holiday vouchers. The free gifts were contingent uponmaking referrals which, admittedly, were not made by the respondent.The directions of the District Forum, which were affirmed by the SCDRCHand NCDRC will result in a manifestly absurd outcome. The order of TODAY MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. ANIL KUMARLUTHRA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
the District Forum was manifestly contrary to the terms of the agreementbetween the parties. Both the SCDRC and the NCDRC have erred inconfirming the order of the District Forum.
8. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugnedjudgment and order of the NCDRC dated 28 November 2018. Thecomplaint filed by the respondent shall accordingly stand dismissed.There shall be no order as to costs.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H