Homeshop18 ordered to pay compensation towards gift vouchers
Beware of making UPI payments to strangers. Always transfer money to bank account after due diligence.

Homeshop18 ordered to pay compensation towards gift vouchers

Have you received a Gift Voucher or been assured of a gift voucher along with a product but not receiving the value or benefits of the voucher? You can seek remedy by approaching the Consumer Commission under Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Here is a case that will explain things in detail.

Mridul Jain Vs. Home Shop 18 and Another
First Appeal No. 553 of 2017 in the State Commission, Delhi
Revision Petition No.785 of 2018 – National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission


The Complainant saw an attractive offer of Gift Voucher of ?1,000/- on the website of the first Opposite Party and purchased one Micromax 5.2” Android Dual Core Phablet A075 from the website of the first Opposite Party. Two Gift Vouchers of ?500/- each was delivered, at the Complainant’s office and ?6,499/- was also paid. It is averred that the Complainant on receipt of the Gift Vouchers saw some terms and conditions on the reverse, which were arbitrary, unreasonable. At the time of booking of the Phablet, no such terms and conditions were informed to the Complainant. Complainant stated that this promised Gift Voucher was only to induce him to purchase the said Phablet. Complainant sent an email on 19.05.2014 to the first Opposite Party but there was no response. It is averred that this conduct of the Opposite Parties amounts to cheating and unfair trade practice and also deficiency of service which caused mental harassment to the Complainant. Therefore the Complainant approached District Consumer Forum for a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay a sum of ?50,000/- towards compensation, ?1,000/- towards loss of Gift Coupons, with interest @ 24% p.a. and other expenses.

The District Forum based on the evidence adduced dismissed the Complaint observing that the Gift
Coupon was a complementary; that the Complainant did not produced any evidence that the Opposite
parties were bound to pay cash for the Gift Coupons contrary to terms and conditions.

Aggrieved by the said order, the Complainant preferred an Appeal before the State Commission,
which concurred with the finding of the District Forum that the Complainant is not a Consumer.

The Complainant filed a Revision Petition in the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short “the Act”) is to the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (in short “the State Commission”) in First Appeal No. 553 of 2017.

NCDRC observed as under:

In the instant case, both the Fora below have erred in coming to a conclusion that the Gift Coupon
was not paid for. It is an admitted fact that the Gift Coupon has been offered to make the offer of the
Micromax Phablet much more attractive. The Complainant exercised his choice of purchasing that
particular Phablet form that particular website because of the offer of the Gif Coupon, therefore the
consideration paid towards Phablet should be viewed in its totality and merely because the Gift Coupon
came free of charge it cannot be considered that the Complainant is not a Consumer.

We are of the considered view that the present case squarely falls within the ambit of Section 2 (r)(3) of the Act, which specifies the offering of gifts, price of other items with the notification of not providing them as offered or creating impression that something is being given or offered free of charge when it is fully or partly covered by the amount charged in the transaction as a whole. In the instant case the terms and conditions which are provided overleaf the Gift Coupon, which the Complainant had actually received along with Phablet, were never actually highlighted or even specified in the advertisement. Inducing the Consumer to purchase a particular article on the website without specifically mentioning the terms and conditions of the Gift Coupon in the main advertisement can be construed as “not providing them as offered” which, amounts to unfair trade practice as it squarely falls within the ambit of Section 2 (r)(3) of the Act.


Hence we are of the considered view that the conduct of the first Opposite Party amounts not only
to deficiency of service but also unfair trade practice, for which the Complainant is entitled to refund of
the cash amount of ?1,000/- and also compensation of ?10,000/- and costs of ?5,000/-.

In the result, this Revision Petition is allowed with the aforenoted directions. Time for compliance
is four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order failing which the compensation amount shall
attract interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of the order till the date of realisation.

Dated : 04 Apr 2019

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Hello Consumers!

Do you have a consumer complaint? Why wait? Submit your complaint using our Post Complaints box. You will hear from us soon.

error: Content is protected !!