Chandigarh Consumer Commission Holds Unisex Fashions Liable For Charging Extra ₹500 During Exchange Under 'One on One' Scheme
AI Generated
The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, comprising Amrinder Singh Sidhu (President) and B.M. Sharma (Member), held Unisex Fashions liable for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice for charging an additional ₹500 from the complainant during exchange of a product purchased under its “One on One” promotional scheme. The Commission observed that once the opposite party accepted the exchange request, it could not arbitrarily demand any extra amount in the absence of specific terms and conditions authorizing such recovery.
Brief Facts
The complainant, Renu Goyal, had purchased four pairs of Pepe Jeans denim jeans from the store of Unisex Fashions under a promotional “One on One” scheme on 15-01-2021. Under the offer, a customer was required to pay the price of the higher-valued product while another product of the same or lesser value was to be provided free of cost. Accordingly, the complainant purchased four jeans having MRPs of ₹3,299, ₹3,599, ₹3,799 and ₹3,999, and paid ₹7,798 for the two higher-priced products.
According to the complainant, one of the jeans priced at ₹3,299 was not comfortable, following which she approached the store the very next day for an exchange and selected another pair priced at ₹3,799. Although she claimed that no additional payment was required under the promotional scheme since the higher-priced products had already been paid for, the store allegedly charged an additional amount of ₹500 as the price difference between the exchanged products.
Aggrieved by the additional charge, which she alleged was illegal and arbitrary, the complainant approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II, Chandigarh, alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the store.
Contentions of the Opposite Party
The opposite party contended that although the “One on One” offer was applicable at the time of original purchase, the products were sold under a “no return, no exchange” policy. It was argued that despite this condition, the store accepted the exchange request as a goodwill gesture.
The opposite party submitted that since the complainant exchanged a jean priced at ₹3,299 for another jean priced at ₹3,799, she was rightly asked to pay the differential amount of ₹500, and therefore, no excess amount had been charged from her.
Observation and Decision
The Commission observed that the complainant had already paid for the two higher-priced jeans under the “One on One” promotional scheme and, therefore, no additional amount was payable at the time of exchange. The Commission held that once the opposite party accepted the exchange request and issued a fresh invoice, it could not arbitrarily charge an extra ₹500 from the complainant.
The Commission further noted that the opposite party failed to produce any terms and conditions showing that a customer would be liable to pay the price difference in case of exchange under the scheme.
Accordingly, the Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund ₹500 along with 6% interest from January 16, 2021 till realization. It also awarded ₹5,000 towards compensation and litigation expenses.
Case Title: Renu Goyal v. Unisex Fashions
Case No.: DC/AB1/44/CC/406/2021