By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:
The case is that the complainant was a subscriber of 16th day kuri conducted by respondent. On 20.10.06 a notice was sent by respondent intimating that a Hero Honda Motor Cycle was prized to complainant as gift. The gift was got in the draw conducted on 16.10.06. But the respondent firm did not deliver the gift to complainant. This act of respondent is unfair trade practice. So a lawyer notice was sent and no remedy so far. The averments in the reply notice are incorrect. Hence the complaint.
2. The counter averments are that it is true that the complainant was a subscriber of this respondent. It is denied that the complainant was a lucky winner of the draw conducted on 16.10.06. There was no unfair trade practice committed by this respondent. As per the terms and conditions of the kuri notice and variola the bonus prize winner should pay the kuri instalments before 15th day of every month. If there was no payment before 15th day the prize will not be given to the subscriber. The complainant is aware of these terms. At the time of lucky draw the complainant was a defaulter. So he is not entitled for the bonus price. Hence dismiss.
3. The points for consideration are that:
(1) Whether there was any unfair trade practice committed by
respondent?
(2) If so, reliefs and costs.
4. The evidence consists of oral testimony of RW1, Exts. R1 to
R4 and Exts. P1 to P3.
5. Points: It is the case that the complainant, the subscriber of 16th day kuri conducted by respondent got a gift during the lucky draw conducted on 16.10.06. It was intimated to complainant also. But the gift was not handed over. So this complaint is filed to get the said gift along with compensation.
6. The respondent contended that there are terms and conditions in the passbook and also in the kuri notice entitling the prize winner to get the gift. According to the respondent, the prize winner should pay the monthly instalments before 15th day of every month. Even if the complainant has won the gift he is not entitled for the same because instalments were not paid before 15th day of every month. As per Ext. P1 this allegation of respondent remains true. But there is no such a condition in Ext. P1 passbook. But the kuri notice which was marked as Ext. P2 and Ext. R2 it is stated that the people who are eligible to get bonus prize should pay the instalment amount before 15th. But this claim of respondent is unfair because it is their duty to refrain from putting the number of the defaulters in the lot. After winning the lot the respondent is trying to escape from the liability to supply the promised gift. It is their duty to find out the subscribers who are paying the instalments before 15th day. The respondent is selecting one among other persons after putting all the subscribers in the lucky draw. If that subscriber is a defaulter they are moving back from their offer. This is definitely an unfair trade practice.
7. RW1 is examined and he has admitted that no further lucky draw was done to find out the eligible subscribers. If the prized subscriber was a defaulter the respondent should repeat the same if they are conducting the draw with good intention. It is not so. So this act of respondent is unfair trade practice and the complainant is entitled for compensation also.
8. In the result the complaint is allowed and the respondent is directed to deliver the Hero Honda Motor Cycle along with compensation of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum this the 15th day of November 2012.
