DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
…………………..
Presents:-
- Sri P.Samantara, President.
- Sri G.K.Rath, Member.
- Smt. S.Rath, Member.
Dated, Bolangir the 26th day of September 2016.
C.C.No. 70 of 2015.
Mangalu Harpal, age-32 years son of Mohansingh Harpal,
Resident of village-Narasinghapur P.O.Badangomunda P.S-
Tusura, District- Bolangir.
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.B4U Television Network India Ltd. Mangam House, Plot No.
14, MIDC Road No.15,Andheri East, Mumbai-400093.
2.B4U Television Network India Ltd.716,International Trade Tower,
Nehru Place, New Delhi- 110015.
3.B4U Television Network India Ltd. Plot No.47,Paramount
Building 2nd Floor, Opp.Fame Adlabs, New Link Road,
Andheri (W) Mumbai-400053.
4.Tata Motors Company Ltd. Tata Nagar (Jamsedpur) M.G.Road,
Pin-831012 (v) Jharkhand, represented through it’s Director.
5.Raj Kumar Sharma, Village- Kariyawan,P.O.Bhatharthari,Nalanda.
6.Rohit Kumar c/o.Hemalata Sinha,Saketpuri Bazar Samiti,
Rajendra Nagar, Patna-16 (Bihar).
7.Chief Secretary, Finance Deptt.Govt.of India, New Delhi.
8.State Bank of India, Nalanda, At/P.O./Dist- Nalanda, Bihar.
.. .. Opp. Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- None.
Adv.for the O.Ps 1 to 3 - Sri D.Das & Associates.
Adv.for the O.P.No.4 -Sri S.Chakraborty & Associates.
Adv. for the O.Ps 5 to 8 - None.
Date of filing of the case- 15.09.2015
Date of order - 26.09.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
Succinctly put, the complainant come across a programme named “KBC” transmitted/display on B4U channel. The programme as runs on the TV screen in identifying the photo of a celebrity, in the TV screen in slow de-screening manner. The voice comes from back ground with four mobile numbers displayed on the TV screen.
2. The complainant averred the entire programme lasts for approximately 30 minutes and celebrity photo is repeated for the entire period of thirty minutes display and calling for identification. On confirmed identification the viewer is showered with prize worth of cash Rs 12,80,000/- or a TATA SAFARI vehicle.
3. On the day of 23.09.2014, the programme displayed the photo of Amitabh Bachhan and Birat Kohali and in identification of the celebrity, the complainant received SMS to the answer made by SMS in phone No.9853876310 to call of Mobile No.9934903591 and the complainant declared lucky winner from “PAI INTERNATIONAL LUCKY DRAW, BANGALORE,KARNATAKA and issued with a certificate in entitlement the award as made declared.
4. Further averred, Jasman Singh give an SBI A/C No.32594659752 to deposit money in different dates and complainant deposited totaling Rs 54,300/- in advise which is found deceived and cheated one. So made the case praying to get the amount deposited and penalize the peoples involved on misdirected advertisement. Made reliance on certificate copy, Money transfer receipts in photo copy and affidavit.
5. Consequent to notice, O.P.1 submitted the addresses of O.P.No.1 and 2 are non-existent and being the single entity is presently known as “B4U Television Network India Ltd.”
6. The O.P also contended that there is no programme named “KBC” as alleged in the complaint having run of duration of 30 minutes and no such programme is telecast.
The complainant has no cause of action and invoking the jurisdiction of this forum. The complainant neither a consumer nor rendered the service as defined in Sec.2(o) of the Consumer Protection Act. No person named Jasman Singh worked in the office of this O.P, the contents in the petition in prima-facie contradictory, confusing, fabricated and concocted. The allegations made are false, misleading and implicated in made out a case. The prayer is not sustainable being based upon concocted allegations and frivolous claims laid to gain monetary benefit, which is liable to be dismissed in limine.
7. The O.P.4 contended that for some strange and extraneous reasons, the name of Tata Motors Ltd. Has been pleaded. There is no existence of any such company by the name of “Tata Motors Company Ltd”.. Bare perusal reveals there is no relief’s have been prayed against the Tata Motors Ltd. Mere mention of Tata Motors Ltd by any person in order to defraud others does not prove that Tata Motors Ltd. Is hand in gloves with the alleged conspiracy as stated by the complainant. The issues in the instant complaint can be effectively and completely adjudicated in absence of Tata Motors Ltd. No privity of contract persists in between complainant and answering party. The conjoint reading of Sections 2(b)(i), 2(d)(ii),2(o) and 12(1)(a) of the C.P. Act entails, the complaint is not maintainable.
8. Further stated the complainant has not availed any service of Tata Motors Ltd. And neither Tata Motors Limited gave the advertisement in the B4U channel ;as claimed by the complainant. The name of O.P.No.4 needs to be struck off from the petition of the complaint and expunged from the instant proceeding and orders & directions be given as deemed fit & proper.
9. On the contrary O.P.No.5 made the submission that he is a poor man and lives in village Kariyawan and works as a labourer in the village. Further stating being a landless and illiterate, put his signature in Hindi only and does not know any programme of B4U TV channel nor known any telecast of “KBC” programme that displays Amitabha Bachhan and Birat Kohali. It is false that on dt.01.10.2014 a sum of Rs 12,800/- has been deposited in account No.32594659752. I do not know any manager of Laxmi Transport namely Amit Paidha. It is matter of investigation how the money is deposited and know my account number. The entire allegation is false and concocted. Prayed my name be struck off from the application and cheating.
10. O.P.No.6, not appeared or made any version. O.P.No.7,not appeared or made any version.
11. Heard the learned counsels and perused the record.
12. On the outset we find it is fit case of “Slogan Jago Grahako Jago” as telecast and transmitted displayed in various media by consumer deptt.
13. In the present case, the complainant come across the “KBC” programme that telecast in B4U channel. And defrauded with a total sum of Rs 54,300/- in various dates in deposit in SBI accounts that retained in others name.
14. The core question revolves on the issue of consumer, cause of action and application of consumer protection act on the nature of allegation as made out.
15. The complainant is a consumer within the provision of the Act under Section 2(d)(ii) and the programme or telecast of “KBC” pertaining to celebrity is a service within the term of entertainment, amusement on the purveying of news or other information’s as proviso there in and paid the consideration as given by the DTH or other home broad caster. So it is no more in dispute, the complaint is a consumer dispute and cause of action arises due defraudment, thereby justifies jurisdiction of the forum, thus maintainable.
16. On the programme telecast on dt.23.09.2014 at about 10.30 P.M. is a public programme and witness by all over India which can’t be suppressed rather evidential entire India knows the programme. The run rate by date and time is a document, which is not inspected and verified by the competent authority constituent for this purpose. So same is not believable and relied one. The specific time of broad cast/telecast is not on its original format. Copy obtained is mis informed and deemed to have doctored one. So we out rightly reject the same as a lay man can say, the programme displayed and telecast in repeated interval. Rather we take into consideration, the affidavit as furnished by the person named Subal Jal and Kuber Deep, respectively of Bangomundas & Rajamunda in Bolangir District as enough evidential one.
17. Further the winner certificate issued by Pai International Lucky draw is a fake one, the institution is a nonexistent one. Whereas electronically money transfer has been effected from the complainant’s account to the account number as mentioned and advise by the voice behind the telecast such nature and manner of performance” and practice of making statement by visible representation, falsely representing the approval affiliation, sponsorship and mis-leading representation on the need and useful is unfair trade practice along with deficiency of service within provision defined u/s. 2(g) & 2 (r ) of the Consumer Protection Act. In addition committed negligence u/s. 2(x) as noted below:-
(2).Permits the publication of any advertisement whether in any news paper or otherwise……….
(3).Permits-
(a) the offering of gifts, prizes or other items with the intention of not providing them….as a whole.
(b) the conduct of any contest, lottery, game of chance or skill…..business interest.
3(A)- withholding from the participants of any scheme…….. of the scheme.
And the practice under the above noted term is vivid, conspicuous and corroborating that such occurrence has happened and the liability is quite rest on the B4U channel on which plat form the entire illegal telecast proceeding is committed. Resiled from the responsibility on the part of B4U,no way proves that such nature of telecast has not undertaken at his end is false, malicious and ill willed one.
18. The entire gamut of story from payment to display or telecast on the specific date, time is quite evidential as perusal records speaks to. Believing no such programme has been made telecast then issuance of winner certificate by Pai International Lucky Draw and transfer money transaction slip avidly proofs the complainant neither carved concept out of air and made a frivolous attempt to earn profit. It is just and proper to provide the money as transferred from the account be refunded in principal by the B4U TV channel.
Hence ordered;-
ORDER.
It is directed B4U Television Network India Ltd. i.e O.Ps 1 to 3 are jointly and severally liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 54,500/- (Rupees Fifty four thousand five hundred) only without any demur towards loss sustained for the misleading and celebrity loaded programme, within 40 days of this order, failing which interest @ 6% per annum will accrue on the above amount, from the date of application till realization.
(ii) We do not find any fault with O.P.No.4 Tata Motors Ltd.
(iii) No order as to compensation & cost.
(iv) No fault found with O.Ps 5,6,7 and 8 respectively.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 26TH DAY OF SEPT’2016.
(S.Rath) (G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
