By Smt. Saji Mathew, Member<br /> <br /> <br /> The gist of the case is as follows:<br /> The 1st opposite party gave an advertisement in the Malayalam daily 'Mathrubhumi' on 3.8.98. regarding the commodity of AKAI TV. In the advertisement the 1st opposite party announced a special offer scheme in which the buyer of the AKAI TV will be given a post dated cheque of Rs.30,000/-. After 5 years and 11 months the buyer can encash the cheque and keep the<br /> TV as his own. It was a full page advertisement and the complainant approached the 2nd opposite Contd......2)<br /> 2 <br /> party who is the authorised dealer of the 1st opposite party in the advertisement. The 2nd opposite party also gave assurance about the merits and benefits of the scheme. The opposite party had purchased the TV on 14.8.1998 paying Rs. 29,240/-. As per the advertisement the price of the AKAI TV is Rs.27,990/-, but the 2nd opposite party sold the set for Rs.29,240/- that is an additional amount of Rs.1250/- was charged by the 2nd opposite party. To get the post dated cheque, the complainant visited 2nd opposite party several times. He had even filed a complaint before the CDRF Wayanad and as per the order from the CDRF, the 1st opposite party had issued post dated cheque through the 2nd opposite parties. After the maturity period of the cheque, the opposite party has presented the cheque before the Canara Bank, Thalapuzha for collection. When it was sent to the drawee bank of Mumbai, the cheque was dishonoured with an endorsement 'Arrangement discontinued'. The 2nd opposite party also took no steps to settle the matter. So the complaint prays for an order directing the opposite party to pay an amount of Rs.30,000/- as the cheque amount to pay a compensation of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and to pay the cost of the petition also. <br /> 2. The 1st opposite party was set exparte. The 2nd opposite party appeared and filed version. The allegations that the complaint was given assurance about benefit of the scheme by the 2nd opposite party is denied. The 2nd opposite party states that there was direct dealing between the complaint and the 1st opposite party and the 2nd opposite party has no liability or responsibility in this matter, The 2nd opposite party contented that they are unnecessary party in this case and prays for an order dismissing the case.<br /> 3. The matters in dispute are as follows:<br /> 1) Is there any unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> 2) Whether the complainants is entitled for any compensation or cost.<br /> 4. The complainants was examined as PW1 and documents marked as Ext.A1 to Ext.A7 on the side of the complainants. Second opposite party was examined as OP W1, no documents Contd.....3)<br /> 3. <br /> marked on the side of the opposite parties. <br /> <br /> 5. Point No.1: Ext. A1 advertisement shows that a scheme was offered by the 1st opposite party as stated in the complaint. It shows the price of AKHAI TV CT-2985 as Rs.27,990/-. Ext. A2 receipts shows that 2nd opposite party has collected Rs.1,250/- as excess price from the opposite party. Ext. A3 is the customer counterfoil of the application dated 3-12-98 for bonus profit offer issued to the complainant. It is signed and sealed by the 2nd opposite party. The Ext. A6 is the cheque issued to the complainant by the 1st opposite party. It is found dishonoured with an endorsement 'All our stamps cancelled'. It is very clear that the offer was made by the 1st opposite party as avered in the complaint. The cheque was issued, presented for collection and was dishonoured. The dealing was made through the 2nd opposite party and 2nd opposite party has benefited by the sale as per the bonus profit scheme. So the point No.1 is found against the opposite parties.<br /> <br /> 6. Point no.2: the complainant has brought this particular T.V only relying on the advertisement given by the 1stopposite party. He obtained the cheque with the interference of the C.D.R.F.Wayanad, and after the maturity period of the cheque, it was seen dishonoured. The 1st opposite party has issued the cheque and is liable to compensate the complaints. 2nd opposite party sold the T.V. As per the scheme and benefited by the scheme. So 2nd opposite party is also is liable to compensate the complaints.<br /> <br /> 7. Hence the 1st opposite party is directed to pay the complainant a compensation equal to the cheque amount ie. Rs.30,000/-. The 2nd opposite party is liable to pay the complainant an amount of Rs.2,000/- as compensation. The opposite parties are to comply with the order with in 30 days of receipt of this order.<br /> Contd...4)<br /> 4.<br /> Pronounced in the open Forum on 25rh March, 2008.