Haryana

Yamunanagar

CC/934/2013

Aditya Saini S/o Agya Ram - Complainant(s)

Versus

Bharat Networking And marketing Future Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Pawan Kumar

11 Aug 2017

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, YAMUNA   NAGAR

                                                               Complaint No. 934 of 2013.

                                                               Date of institution: 15.11.2013.

                                                               Date of decision: 11.08.2017.

 

1. Aditya Saini minor son of Agya Ram, aged 16 years,
2. Kamna minor d/o Agya Ram, aged 15 years,
3. Ashok Kumar son of Sh. Ishwar Chand, aged 23 years,
4. Komal minor d/o Sh. Ajaib Singh,  aged 15 years,
5. Pardeep Kumar son of Sh. Ramujagar Singh, aged 24 years,
6. Shiv Charan son of Sh. Fakir Chand, aged 26 years,
7. Agya Ram son of Sh. Bram Singh, aged 28 years,
8. Lajjo Devi wd/o Not known, aged 26 years,
9. Shilpa Devi minor grand daughter of Lajjo Devi, aged 12 years,
10. Gaurav Kumar son of Lachhaman Singh, aged 26 years,

 

All residents of VPO Model Town, Damla, Tehsil Jagadhri, Distt. Yamuna Nagar

                                                                                                  ...Complainants.

                             Versus

1. Bharat networking & Marketing Future (P) Ltd., Head office Shiv Mandir Market, Village Sangohi, Karnal 132001.
2. Mr. Ravi Son of Balbeer Singh, R/o Village Dholara, P.O. Radour, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.
3. Raman @ Sunty Son of Pawan Kumar, R/o Village Dudhla, P.O. Damla, Distt. Yamuna Nagar.

…. Respondents.

                  

BEFORE    SH. DHARAMPAL, PRESIDENT

                   SH. S.C.SHARMA, MEMBER.

                   SMT. VEENA RANI SHEOKAND, MEMBER.          

 

Present:       Sh. P.K. Punia, Advocate, counsel for complainant.   

                   Sh. Sukhbir Singh, Advocate, counsel for respondents. 

 

ORDER      (DHARAMPAL PRESIDENT)

 

1.                 Complainants have filed this complaint under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as amended up to date. 

2.                Brief facts of the complaint, as alleged by the complainant, are that the complainants and OPs are consumer and service provider respectively and hence, there exists a relationship of consumer and supplier between the parties. The OPs No. 2 and 3 are working as agent/worker into a Firm/organization under the name and style “ Bharat Networking and Marketing Future (P) Ltd.” i.e. OP No. 3 head office situated at Karnal Distt. Karnal, which is registered firm under the Govt. of Haryana vide ROF No. 603 dated 08-03-2013 and the same facts were published with the terms and conditions on the face of advertised pamphlet published by the OP No. 3 i.e. Firm/organization of the OP No. 2 and 3. The OP No. 2 and 3 are dealing directly as well as indirectly with General Public ini order to sell their various households products as washing machine, Juicer, mixer, grinder etc. with the mode of lucky draw scheme. The result of draw was scheduled to be declared on every Sunday. The maximum members of the scheme were 2000 and the total number of instalments were per member as Rs. 150/- X 11 =1650/- and each and every customer was allotted a distinctive coupon number and the same coupon number was valid for the lucky draw scheme. The venue for process announcement of the lucky draw scheme was Radour at village Dholra only as said by the agents i.e. OP No. 2 and 3. The OPs No. 2 and 3had good friendly relation with the complainants, as such the OP allured the complainants to join the said lucky draw scheme and at that time the OP No. 2 and 3 gave their assurance that the scheme was genuine scheme. Upon which, the complainants invested their money in the said scheme after completion of all necessary formalities and paid the regular instalments to the OPs. The complainants have declared as winner of the lucky draw scheme by the firm/organization of the Ops but till date none of the them has received any consolable prizes as advertised on pamphlet published by the OPs. The complainants requested several times to the OPs but they lingering the matter on one pretext or the other and OP No. 2 and 3 offered cheap and low quality products which are of no use. The complainants got served with one registered AD legal notice dated 22-08-2013 to the OPs in order to deliver the high standard quality products but till date no acknowledgement has been received. As such, the OPs are adopting an unfair trade practice and are also liable for deficient and negligent of services towards the complainants and further prayed that OPs be directed to deliver the high standard quality products to the complainants along with compensation, to pay Rs. 90,000/- as compensation on account of physically and mental agony harassment and to pay Rs. 10,000/- as costs of the litigation, to the complainants. 

 3.               Upon notice, OPs appeared and filed their written statement by taking some preliminary objections such as this Forum has no jurisdiction to try, entertain and decide the present complaint as the draw of the scheme was held at Village Sangohi, District Karnal and cause of action , if any, has also arisen at Village Sangohi, District Karnal and the complainants have not come to the court with clean hands and have suppressed the true and material facts. On merits, it is denied that the venue for lucky draw scheme was Radour at Village Dholra. Rather, the said venue for the lucky draw scheme was at Village Sangohi District Karnal. It is submitted that the said lucky draw was organized in open area in presence of all participants and the names of the lucky winners were announced in public and were distributed the articles which they had won at that very day in the presence of the other participants. It is further submitted that the complainants had been given the articles/products of superior quality. Infact, one of the complainants visited the OPs and requested them to give refund of the product so won by him in the lucky draw scheme but when the OPs showed their inability for the same, they were threatened to face dire consequences. Lastly, prayed for dismissal of complaint.

4.                To prove his case, counsel for the complainants tendered into evidence affidavit  of Agya Ram as Annexure CW/A  and original coupons Annexure C-1 to Annexure C-6, postal receipt as Annexure C-7 and photocopy of Legal Notice as Annexure C-8 and closed evidence on behalf of the complainant.                                                                                                            

5.                On the other hand, counsel for the OPs has failed to produce any evidence inspite of several opportunities including last opportunity, hence, the evidence of the OPs was closed by the court’s order.   

6.                We have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and have gone through the pleadings as well as documents placed on file very minutely & carefully.

7.                After hearing the parties, we are of the considered opinion that complainants have failed to produce any payment receipt vide which they have purchased the said coupons from the OPs. 

8.                Moreover, no such type of evidence has been filed to prove that any alleged discussion took place at Yamuna Nagar i.e. in the Jurisdiction of this Forum. Further, in the absence of any agreement executed between the parties, this Forum is unable to hold that there was any lapse on the part of OPs.

                    We have carefully and minutely perused the details of coupons, there is mentioned the address of the OPs as “Head Office: Shiv Mandi Market, Village Sangohi, Karnal”   but there is nowhere mentioned about any branch office situated at Yamuna-Nagar or elsewhere within the jurisdiction of this Forum. Hence, the OPs cannot be held liable only on the basis of the oral contentions that the lucky draw was to be declared at Radour at village Dholra.

9.                  Though in the present complaint, the OPs have failed to produce any evidence in the present case but it does not give any right to the complainant to take the benefit of this, as it is well settled law that the complainant is to stand on its own legs, without taking the weakness of the opposite parties.

10.              In the circumstances noted above, we are of the considered view that the complainants have totally failed to prove that this Forum has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present complaint and further failed to prove that there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of OPs. 

11.              Resultantly, we find no merit in the present complaint and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the complainants are at liberty to approach the appropriate Court/Forum for redressal of their grievances, if so advised and in that eventuality, the period of litigation before this forum shall be counted towards the period of limitation for approaching appropriate Court/Forum. Exemption of time spent before this Forum is granted in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case titled  “Laxmi Engineering Works versus PSG Industirial Institute (1995) 3 SCC page 583. Copies of this order be sent to the parties concerned free of costs as per rules. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.

 

Announced in open court. 11.08.2017

 

 

                                                     ( DHARAMPAL)

                                                     PRESIDENT

                                                     D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR

                                                     AT JAGADHRI

 

 

   (VEENA RANI SHEOKAND)      (S.C.SHARMA)

      MEMBER                                      MEMBER

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

 

( DHARAMPAL)

                                                            PRESIDENT

                                                           D.C.D.R.F.YAMUNA NAGAR
                                                           JAGADHRI