TODAY MERCHANDISE PVT LTD & versus ANIL KUMAR LUTHRA

Citation: [2020] 4 S.C.R. 471 · Decided: 08-01-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
471
TODAY MERCHANDISE PVT LTD & ANOTHER
v.
ANIL KUMAR LUTHRA
(Civil Appeal No. 80 of 2020)
JANUARY 08, 2020
[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
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
[2020] 4 S.C.R. 471
471
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 4 S.C.R.
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]
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.
Manish Goswami, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal,  Advs. for the
Appellants.
Shivam Sharma, Rishi Kapoor, Ankur Gogia, Ms. Manju Jetley,
Advs. for the Respondent.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
473
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
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
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
available to the purchaser against further referrals. The gifts were
contingent on the number of referrals made by th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.