A. P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : AT HYDERABAD
FA 1480/2007 against CD No. 1195/2004 on the file of the
District Forum II, Visakhapatnam
Between :
Sri K. V. Venkata Raju
S/o K. Balakrishna
D. No. 15-19-14, Upstairs,
Maharanipet, Krishna Nagar
Visakhapatnam Appellant/complainant
And
1. The Managing Director, Auto Cars
Compound, Adalath Road
Aurangabad 431 005
Maharashtra State.
2. Sri Dipan Kargupta, 171 C, Mittal Court
Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021
3. Videocon International Limited
D. No. 50-57-14, Rajendra Nagar
Near Reddy’s Hospital
Opp : B.V. K. College Road
Visakhapatnam – 16.
4. Videocon International Limited
D. No. 1-11-222/2, Begumpet
Hyderabad – 16.
5. Sri K. Murali Krishna, Annapurna
Appliance, Vipanikalpa, M. G. Road
Vizianagaram.
6. P. Srikanth, Macotax Consultants Pvt. Ltd
D. No. 29-7-35/1, Vishnuvardhan Rao street,
Suryaraopet
Vijayawada – 520 002 .. Respondents/opposite parties
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. K. V. Simhadri
Counsel for the Respondents : Mr. A. Venkatesh for R1, R3 and R4.
R2, R5 and R6 set exparte.
Coram ; Sri Syed Abdullah … Hon’ble Member
And
Sri R. Lakshminarasimha Rao… Hon’ble Member
Friday, the Eighteenth Day of June, Two Thousand Ten
Oral Order : ( As per Sri Syed Abdullah, Hon’ble Member )
*******
Being not satisfied with the order dated 29.03.2006 passed in C. D. 1195/2004 only against OP 5 directing for payment of the amount, this appeal is filed for passing an order against all the respondents/Opposite parties fastening joint and several liability on them.
The facts of the case disclose that the complainant had purchased Videocon colour T. V. set under money back scheme for Rs.13,990/- from the 5th Opposite party. As per the terms of the Scheme, the complainant had to get back Rs.8,990/- after expiry of 5 years from the date of security deposit which was made on 30.07.1998. The complainant addressed a letter to opposite parties 1 to 5 reminding them to refund the amount under money back scheme. 6th Respondent/OP. 6 saying that his name did not list in the scheme and on that a legal notice dated 12.8.2004 was sent calling upon the opposite parties for refund of the assured amount of Rs.8,990/- being the security deposit made by him. The act or omission would amounts to deficiency in service for which they are liable to pay it.
Notices were sent through registered post to opposite parties 1 to 6. Vakalat was filed for opposite parties. Counter affidavit of OP 5 was filed denying the allegations. It is stated that Videocon International Limited had introduced a scheme under money back policy when the complainant purchased a colour T. V. from his shop under the said scheme. Thereafter, he sent all relevant papers to the company for issuing a receipt. The said papers were not delivered to the company. But the company alone is liable to pay the amount. There is no deficiency on his part . Complainant has shown the Videocon International Ltd as 3rd OP who is having business in 2nd OP’s address. The address shown in the complaint is not correct. The Visakhapatnam office; is in no way connected. The complaint is not maintainable and he has to approach Civil Court.
During the enquiry, both complainant and 5th OP filed their respective evidence affidavits, so also, Ex. A1 to A8 filed for the complainant.
The District Forum adjudicated the point whether the complainant had purchased Videocon T. V. under the money back policy from Annapurna Appliances, Vizianagaram,; if so, whether the complainant is entitled to receive the amount payable under the money back policy. So also, adjudicated whether the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable to pay back the amount ?
The appellant/complainant contention is that 5th respondent/5th OP is only a dealer where as the scheme was offered by Videocon International Ltd, as such, all the opposite parties are jointly and severally liable for the amount claimed by the complainant.
Point for consideration is, whether the District Forum order suffers from any factual or legal infirmity ?
The docket order dated 17.01.2005 shows that notices were sent to respondents/OPs 1 to 6 by Registered post and the notices for OP 3 and 5 were served but the notices sent to opposite parties 1,2, 4 and 6 have not returned. At that stage, one A. K. Sharma filed Vakalat and counter affidavit. There is no information on the docket, whether the notices sent to 1,2 and 4 were either returned or they were set exparte. The complainant had not taken further steps to see whether or not the notices were served on the other respondents no order was passed setting them exparte. Ex. A-1 is a delivery challan dated 19.07.98 issued by Annapurna Appliances having its business at Vizianagaram from whom a Videocon colour T. V. was purchased for Rs.13,990/- Ex. A2 is the customer counter foil given by the said dealer who is arrayed as OP no. 5 in the complaint. It is mentioned that the complainant had applied for money back scheme for CTV model T. V. The complainant has filed Ex. A6 issued by the Videocon International Ltd, I.e., OP 1 whose registered office is as shown Autocars Compound, Adalat road, Aurangabad. Ex.A6 was not issued by OP 1. OP.1 is described as Managing Director, Autocars compound, there is a wrong description of the party. Except Ex. A1, a2 and A3, there is no material on record, to link the transaction with other Opposite parties. On scrutiny of Ex. A6 which is a security receipt which shows that it was issued in the name of P. Y. Sadananda Rao, Rajugariveedhi, Pithapuram where as the complainant is K. V. Venkataraju, a resident of Visakhapatnam. The complainant seems to have addressed a letter to one Mr. Dipankar Gupta, Mumbai who is arrayed as OP 2 by sending Ex. A3 letter under registered post with acknowledgement due and also addressed a letter to one Srikanth, Smart Service, Vijayawada, who is arrayed as OP 6 demanding as to why his name is not listed and to inform the dealer Annapurna Appliances, Vizianagaram for further information. The evidence on record is ipsi dixit to fasten liability on all the opposite parties as claimed by the complainant. When Ex. A2 counter foil was issued assuring Videocon money back policy by OP 5 and in the absence of any security receipt in the name of the complainant the liability cannot be fastened against all the respondents/OPs. OP 5 has not contested impugned order. The OP no. 5 in his counter while admitting the money back scheme has simply stated that the company alone is liable to pay the said amount as the scheme itself was introduced by the company itself. OP 5 as a dealer having undertaken the business on behalf of the Videocon Company, it cannot go back from the commitment. There is no direct nexus in between the complainant and OP 1 to claim from the OP 1. It is only through OP 5 the entire transaction said to have taken place and OP 5 had issued an acknowledgement Ex. A2 in favour of the complainant. When Ex. A6 deposit receipt stands in the name of a different person, the liability cannot be fastened against OP 1 so also to others. The complainant failed to substantiate as to how the other opposite parties are involved in the transaction. The District Forum has discussed all the points in its order and rightly fastened the liability against the OP 5 directing payment f Rs.8,990/- together with interest at 12% from 31.7.2004 till realization and also compensation of Rs.3000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.500/-. We feel that the order passed is not perverse or erroneous for its interference. The complaint is devoid of merits.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed confirming the order dated 29.03.2006 passed in CD 1195/2004 as justified. No order as to costs.
Sd/- MEMBER
Sd/- MEMBER
DATED :18.06.2010
MEMBER
MEMBER
DATED :
