Punjab

Rupnagar

CC/19/129

MOHAN SINGH - Complainant(s)

Versus

B.S JODHA ENTERPRISES - Opp.Party(s)

MOHINDER PAL SINGH

20 Aug 2021

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION ROPAR

                                               Consumer Complaint No.129 of 2019

                                              Date of institution: 19.12.2019

                                              Date of Decision: 20.08.2021

 

Mohan Singh, aged about 57 years, son of Dayal Singh, resident of Village Singhpura, Tehsil & District Rupnagar 

…….Complainant

Versus

B.S. Jodha, Enterprises (Regd.) 4983, Having Office: Near Bhatha Sahib Chowk, Rupnagar, Tehsil & District Rupnagar, through its Prop. Avtar Singh son of Bhag Singh.

Second Address: Avtar Singh son of Bhag Singh, resident of Village Bindrakh, Tehsil & District Rupnagar

                                                    ……..Opposite Party

 

Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.

 

Quorum:   Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President.

                       Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Present:    Sh. Mohinderpal Singh, Adv. counsel for complainant

O.P. ex-parte.

              
 

Order dictated by :-  Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President and

Capt. Yuvinder Singh Matta, Member

 

Order

The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Party (hereinafter referred as ‘OP for short) on the ground that the CC was having a friend in relations with the OP who is engaged in the work of lottery on monthly instalments. It is alleged that the OP assured that his lottery scheme was approved by the government and his company namely BS Jodha Enterprises is registered with the government having registration No.4983. It is alleged that OP started a new lottery scheme of 20 monthly instalments of Rs.600/- per month and CC was told that every month a lucky draw will be opened and the person after getting the price in the lucky draw need not to pay the remaining instalments of the lottery for remaining months. CC accordingly also became the member of the scheme on 27.7.2017 and was given ID No.1491 and started paying Rs.600 every month. But, unfortunately the name of the CC never came in the monthly draw and he had to pay all the monthly instalments totalling Rs.12000/- to the OP. It is alleged that after the completion of the scheme, CC approached the OP to give the double bed or cash amount but the OP put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Legal notice was also served upon the OP dated 4.9.2019 but nothing happened. The CC alleging deficiency in service on the part of the OP has sought the refund of the amount of Rs.12000/- along with interest @ 12% per annum and Rs.50,000/- as compensation. The complaint of the CC is signed, verified and also supported by an affidavit.

2.        Upon notice, the OP has chosen to remain ex-parte

3.        In support of his complaint, the complainant has tendered into evidence duly sworn affidavit of complainant Ex.C1 along with documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C8 and closed the evidence. 

       4.         We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant and have gone through the record file, carefully and minutely.

5.        CC in support of the complainant has tendered Ex.C2 i.e. terms and condition of BS Jodha enterprises. We have read over the terms and condition of the scheme, it is specifically mentioned in condition No. 8 that the CC was supposed to disclose what he wants to have immediately after the 18th draw. There is nothing in the complaint that immediately after 18th draw the CC did request the OP to hand over the double bed or to refund the amount of Rs.12000/-. Even, we have perused the legal notice, the client after the completion of the scheme allegedly has demanded the double bed or cash amount. It is also alleged in the legal notice that the OP did not respond on the request of the CC.

5.        The paramount question before us is whether such type lottery or contract do fall within the definition of a consumer dispute or not. Admittedly, this type of scheme was definitely a lottery. In this, the CC was deposited Rs.600/- every month with the expectation to get a price out of the draw of lots. But even after the completion of 18 months he did not get any draw in his favour. CC has failed to show us any such contract or agreement where it was mentioned that even after the draw of 18 months, the OP was bound to give him a double bed or to refund Rs.12000/-.

6.        To our mind, this was not a contract, it is important to mention here that where an amount is fixed in a contract as an amount payable by way of compensation, the party complaining of breach can receive a reasonable compensation with that fixed amount. It is important to mention here that the present matter can not be termed as a contract. There was no fixed amount already fixed for the complainant by the OP. It was absolutely like a lottery. The present matter also do not fall within the Section 73,74 & 75 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It is not a case where a contract has been broken and the party who suffers such breach of contract is entitle to receive from the party, who has broken the contract.

7         To my mind this was a void agreement for uncertainty agreement, the meaning which is not certain or capable of being made certain or void.

8.        In view of our above discussion and the definition given under Section 29 & 30 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the present contract was definitely void and is unsustainable in the eyes of law. As such, the present complaint on merits deserves dismissal. However, no order as to cost.  Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.

•  

August, 20, 2021

(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)

•  

                                            

 

(Capt. Y.S. Matta)

•