BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 119/2004 Filed on 11.03.2004<br /> Dated : 15.07.2008<br /> Complainant:<br /> Beatrice Perera, Four S Villa, Puthen Thoppu P.O, St. Xavier’s College, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> Opposite parties: <br /> 1.Ferdinent Edison (RMP Agent), Jeena Cottage, Puthen Thoppu P.O, St. Xavier’s College, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. P.A. Sivarajan)<br /> <br /> 2.RMP Infotech Private Limited, F1, 1st Floor, Appolo Dubai Plaza, 100 Mahalingapuram Main Road, Chennai – 600 034.<br /> <br /> (By adv. C.B. Mukundhan)<br /> <br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 29.12.2004, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 27.05.2008, the Forum on 15.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA: MEMBER<br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: The 1st opposite party had collected an amount of Rs. 4000/- from the complainant on 02.07.2002 for joining the 2nd opposite party company for which a registration certificate was also issued. Further a VCD was also assured to be given to the complainant, but on every enquiry the 1st opposite party evaded from giving it. The complainant was made to join the company under the promise that they will receive cheque every week. Even after the expiry of 14 years and 6 months, the complainant has not received the money or any items. Hence this complaint for refund of Rs. 4000/- with interest and costs. <br /> The 1st opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: This opposite party has not collected any amount from the complainant. RMP Infotech (P) Ltd is functioning all over India that this is a binary plan. The complainant became a member of the company and the amount has been remitted in the company for which receipt was also issued. This has been done by Top agent Rajasekharan who has not been made a party in this complaint. A member of the scheme has to join new members only then will he get income. A person who remits membership fee of Rs. 3990/- has to work for 1 year and after that it has to be renewed by paying Rs. 500/-. The complainant has never worked and this opposite party is not bound to refund the amount. The complainant became a member only after accepting all rules of the company. Any member who wants the products of the company will be given the same after payment of the balance amount deducting membership fee from the product price. The 1st opposite party prays for dismissal of the complaint as against this opposite party. <br /> The 2nd opposite party has filed their version contending as follows: The complainant is not a consumer. She being an independent distributor of the company will not fall under the definition of the consumer as per Consumer Protection Act besides this, she is not a complainant as provided under Sec. 2(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. The company is engaged in direct marketing business and provides a network business opportunity to those who join the company's network business scheme as an independent distributor. The person who comes forward to join as an independent distributor has to make a payment of Rs. 3990/- as distributorship fee. Hence the said payment is towards distributorship fee for becoming a distributor under the company. The company against that payment, is giving an opportunity to do the distribution business national wide to the distributors. The distributorship has to be renewed every year by making a payment of Rs. 500/-. The distributors of the company will be getting attractive returns from the company depending upon the business done by them. After being convinced, the complainant joined the company's multilevel marketing business as an independent distributor by paying Rs. 3990/-. The question of exploiting her ignorance has never arisen. The complainant joined the company mainly for the financial gains, which she could have earned, had she worked effectively as a distributor. If an independent distributor is interested in buying any of such products, he will have to pay the price of the product. The company's consignee agent is selling the products at the rates given in the brochures, which in all cases used to be less than the MRP rate. The complainant has taken four different versions regarding the alleged payment. The allegations in the complaint that, the complainant paid the said amount for getting any product has no basis and hence denied by this opposite party. The complainant failed to present a clear and consistent case. This opposite party denies the allegation that the 1st opposite party is the agent of the company. The 1st opposite party is an independent distributor of the company. There is no principal agent relationship or employer employee relationship between the company and the distributor. The distributor cannot bind the company in any way or imply that he has an authority to bind the company or to speak on its behalf. The whole allegations in the complaint are the results of the misconception of facts and Laws. This opposite party is not liable for any of the allegations in the complaint. <br /> The complainant has been examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 and P2 were marked on her part. Opposite parties have no evidence. <br /> The issues raised for consideration are:<br /> (i)Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs. <br /> Point (i):- At the outset it is to be noted that the complainant is an illiterate poor lady. She alleges that the 1st opposite party had collected Rs. 4000/- from her for joining the RMP company under the condition that a VCD will be given to her, but she has not been given the VCD, and further she has been asked to renew her membership by paying Rs. 500/-. The opposite parties 1 & 2 have contended that the complainant has joined the company's multilevel marketing business as an independent distributor by paying Rs. 3990/- and 2nd opposite party contends that independent distributor of the company will not fall under the definition of consumer under Consumer Protection Act. We perused the records on file. There is no document showing the payment of Rs. 4000/- by the complainant to the opposite parties. No receipts are produced proving the payment of Rs. 4000/- and the complainant submitted that she has not been issued with receipt for her payment. But the 2nd opposite party has admitted the receipt of an amount of Rs. 3990/- from the complainant. But they have not produced any document to prove that on what account they have received the said amount. Though the opposite parties contended that the complainant became a member after accepting all the rules, there is no scrap of paper produced or marked by the opposite parties substantiating the same. When the opposite parties contend that the complainant has become a member after accepting all rules, the burden is on the opposite parties to prove the same. In the absence of any documents in corroboration of the same, this Forum cannot accept the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant was made aware of the rules of the said scheme of the company and the said amount of Rs. 3990/- has been collected from her towards joining fee as an independent distributor. Moreover complainant as PW1 has deposed that the amount of Rs. 4000/- has been collected for the VCD but VCD has not been given. She has further deposed that though she was told later that the amount will be refunded, it is also not done. PW1 has not been cross examined. Hence her deposition stands unchallenged. <br /> The 2nd opposite party has contended that the complainant is not a consumer since she is an independent distributor of the company. We have perused the records on file and there is nothing on record to substantiate that the complainant is an independent distributor. The complainant has alleged that the amount of Rs. 4000/- has been collected from her towards supply of the VCD. The opposite parties have failed to establish the contention that the amount collected is towards the joining fee as an independent distributor. This contention lacks evidence. In the absence of any evidence to prove that the complainant has become an independent distributor and that too after accepting the rules and regulations and since the opposite party has failed to establish that the amount of Rs. 3990/- has been collected from her towards the joining fee, this Forum inclined to believe the complaint and it is found that the complainant is entitled to refund of the amount of Rs. 3990/- from the opposite parties. <br /> For the foregoing discussions this Forum is of the view that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties for which the complainant has to be compensated. <br /> Point (ii):- In the light of the above, the complainant is found entitled for the refund of Rs. 3990/- with interest from 02.07.2002 along with an amount of Rs. 300/- towards costs of the complaint from the opposite parties jointly and severally. <br /> In the result, the opposite parties are jointly and severally directed to pay Rs. 3990/- with 12% interest from 02.07.2002 along with Rs. 300/- towards costs within a period of two months. <br /> <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.<br /> <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th July 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD,<br /> President.<br /> <br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K. SREELA : MEMBER<br /> <br /> O.P.No. 119/2004<br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :<br /> <br /> PW1 - Beatrice Perera<br /> <br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> P1 - Photocopy of Registration Certificate dated 2nd July 2002 with track ID-RMPFOURS VILLA 020702.<br /> P2 - Photocopy of renewal request dated 02.12.2003.<br /> <br /> III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> <br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS :<br /> <br /> NIL<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT<br />