Supreme Court of India
TODAY MERCHANDISE PVT LTD &versusANIL KUMAR LUTHRA
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 20
- Decided
- 8 January 2020
- Disposal
- Case Allowed
- Bench
- D Y CHANDRACHUD
Holding
The free gifts were contingent on making referrals; a purchaser who made no referrals is not entitled to the gifts, and the NCDRC’s order is set aside.
Summary
The respondent bought three holiday vouchers for a total of Rs 17,994 from Today Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., which advertised a scheme offering free gifts contingent on making a certain number of referrals. The respondent claimed entitlement to a laptop, a mobile phone and a 42‑inch LED TV without making any referrals, and the District Consumer Redressal Forum, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission all upheld his claim, also awarding monetary compensation. The appellant contended that the free gifts were expressly conditional on referrals and that the respondent had made none, arguing that the lower forums erred and that the decision would lead to an absurd result. The Supreme Court examined the scheme’s terms, the email dated 18 September 2012, and the record of the District Forum, concluding that the purchaser was not entitled to the gifts merely by buying the vouchers. Consequently, the Court set aside the NCDRC’s judgment, dismissed the respondent’s complaint and allowed the appeal.
Issues considered
- Whether purchase of the holiday vouchers alone confers a right to the advertised free gifts.
- Whether the terms of the referral scheme make the free gifts conditional on making referrals.
- Whether the District Forum’s order was contrary to the contractual terms of the scheme.
- Whether the email dated 18 September 2012 forms part of the record and affects the interpretation of the offer.
- Whether the NCDRC erred in confirming the lower forum’s decision and awarding compensation.
Subjects
Consumer Protection Actholiday voucher schemefree giftsreferral conditionmisrepresentationjurisdictionDistrict Consumer ForumNCDRCappealcontract terms
Judgment
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 471 471
TODAY MERCHANDISE PVT LTD & ANOTHER A
v.
ANIL KUMAR LUTHRA
(Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2020)
JANUARY 08, 2020 B
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD
AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Consumer Protection – Respondent purchased three vouchers
each of Rs.5998/-, and in total paid Rs.17,994/-, of the holiday
C
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 D
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
E
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 F
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
G
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
H
471
472 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 4 S.C.R.
A 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.
B
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
C “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
D
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]
E CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 80 of
2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.11.2018 of the National
Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision Petition
No. 2118 of 2018.
F
Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Advs. for the
Appellants.
Shivam Sharma, Rishi Kapoor, Ankur Gogia, Ms. Manju Jetley,
Advs. for the Respondent.
G
H
TODAY MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. ANIL KUMAR 473
LUTHRA
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by A
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal arises from a judgment of the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission1 dated 28 November 2018 in the course B
of its revisional jurisdiction. The appellant advertised a holiday voucher
scheme through its website. In September 2012, an employee of the
appellant communicated the scheme to the respondent who expressed
his willingness to purchase holiday scheme vouchers. The terms on which
the vouchers were available were indicated on the website of the
appellant. The scheme envisaged that “free gifts” would be made C
available to the purchaser against further referrals. The gifts were
contingent on the number of referrals made by the subscriber. The
relevant part of the scheme is reproduced below:
“
D
No of Referral Gift
2 UCB Wrist Watch
3 UCB Sunglasses
6 I Ball Mobile
8 Kodak Digital Camera
10 Kodak Digital Camera + I-Pod
15 Blackberry Curve 8520 E
20 HCL/Dell Mini Laptop
’’
3. The respondent purchased three vouchers each of Rs. 5998
and thus paid a total sum of Rs. 17,994. On 18 September 2012, the
F
appellant addressed an e-mail to the respondent specifically adverting
to the referral scheme. The respondent was informed that, by making
referrals of his ‘friends and associates’, he could avail of the gifts which
were on offer, in the terms noted above.
4. The respondent moved the District Consumer Redressal
G
Forum2, Sikar claiming that he was entitled to three free gifts, namely, (i)
a laptop; (ii) a mobile phone; and (iii) a 42” LED television. The
District Forum allowed the claim. The order of the District Forum was
confirmed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum3 and in
1
NCDRC
2
District Forum H
3
SCDRC
474 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 4 S.C.R.
A revision by the NCDRC. Monetary compensation has also been awarded
in the amount of Rs 5,000 for mental torture, together with costs of
Rs. 2000.
5. Mr Manish Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the appellant submitted that the offer which was made by the appellant
B for free gifts to a subscriber was conditional on referrals. The respondent
did not make any referrals. Moreover, it was urged that the order of
the District Forum would result in a manifest absurdity since in terms of
its direction, a subscriber who had paid an amount of Rs. 17,994, would
be entitled to a cell phone, a laptop and a television set of a value far
in excess of the amount which has been contributed. Learned counsel
C also urged that the appellant had a serious objection to the jurisdiction of
the District Forum.
6. On the other hand, it was urged by Mr. Shivam Sharma, learned
counsel on behalf of the respondent that the e-mail dated 18 September
2012 which has been produced in the counter affidavit was not a part of
D the record of the District Forum. It was urged that an employee of the
appellant had, in fact, made a representation to the respondent assuring
that free gifts would be handed over. Learned counsel urged that as a
consequence of the dispute, the services of the employee were
terminated which goes to establish the case of the respondent that such
E a representation was indeed made.
7. Under the scheme which was propagated by the appellant, the
“free gifts” were contingent on the subscriber making referrals. Though
the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted
that the e-mail dated 18 September 2012 was not a part of the record
F of the District Forum, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant
has 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
G 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
H and NCDRC will result in a manifestly absurd outcome. The order of
TODAY MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. & ANOTHER v. ANIL KUMAR 475
LUTHRA [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, J.]
the District Forum was manifestly contrary to the terms of the agreement A
between the parties. Both the SCDRC and the NCDRC have erred in
confirming the order of the District Forum.
8. We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the NCDRC dated 28 November 2018. The
complaint filed by the respondent shall accordingly stand dismissed. B
There shall be no order as to costs.
Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Consumer Protection Act"Sign in to search