<br /> COMPLAINT FILED: 27.03.2008<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM AT BANGALORE (URBAN)<br /> <br /> <br /> 31st JULY 2008<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESENT :- SRI. A.M. BENNUR PRESIDENT <br /> SMT. M. YASHODHAMMA MEMBER <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO.797/2008<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINANT T.G.Pramila,<br /> D/o Govinda Gowda,<br /> Srinidhi Nivasa,<br /> No.14/2, 4th Cross Right Side,<br /> Magadi Road,<br /> Bangalore – 23.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> V/s.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> OPPOSITE PARTY H.K.Bhagya,<br /> W/o Krishnae Gowda,<br /> No.10, 6th Main Road,<br /> 13th Cross, K.P.Agrahara,<br /> Bangalore - 23<br /> <br /> Advocate – Sri.R.Gopalakrishna<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed U/s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 by the complainant seeking direction to the Opposite Party (herein after called as O.P) to pay a compensation of Rs.60,000/- and for such other relief’s on an allegations of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. <br /> <br /> The brief averments, as could be seen from the contents of the complaint, are as under:<br /> <br /> Complainant being lured away with the Deepavali benefit scheme floated by the OP became the member of the said scheme. Not only herself, her brother, mother, sister all of them become the member of the said scheme wherein they are required to pay Rs.100/- per month for two years. In return OP promise to give 53 gms of Gold of 22 carrot. Complainant and her family members were prompt in making payment of the said instalment which is acknowledged by the OP in the pass book issued by her. After the completion of the said scheme, when complainant requested the OP to give them the Gold as promised, some how OP protracted the claim. Ultimately refused to give the Gold. Complainant even filed a police case, there was no response. Thus complainant felt deficiency in service on the part of the OP. For no fault of her, she is made to suffer both mental agony and financial loss. Though complainant and her family members invested their hard earned money in the scheme they are unable to get the benefit of the same because of cheating made by the OP. Under the circumstances she is advised to file this complaint and sought for the reliefs accordingly.<br /> <br /> 2. On appearance, OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in toto. According to OP the allegations made in the complaint are of a nature of cheating punishable U/s.420 of IPC. If so advised complainant may file a complaint for the said offence against the OP. Complainant is not the member of the said scheme. On the other hand her sister T.G.Sachitha was the member of the scheme and after the completion of the scheme she has received the benefits. The other documents produced by the complainant refers to T.G Vathsala, H.V Jayamma and others they have not filed the complaint against the OP. Complainant is not a ‘consumer’ as defined under the Act. Allegations are devoid of merits. Among these grounds, OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.<br /> <br /> 3. In order to substantiate the complaint averments, the complainant filed the affidavit evidence and produced some documents. OP has also filed the affidavit evidence. Then the arguments were heard.<br /> <br /> 4. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this complaint are as under:<br /> <br /> Point No. 1 :- Whether the complainant has Proved <br /> the deficiency in service on the part of <br /> the OP?<br /> <br /> Point No. 2 :- If so, whether the complainant is <br /> entitled for the relief’s now claimed?<br /> <br /> Point No. 3 :- To what Order?<br /> <br /> <br /> 5. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties, both oral and documentary evidence and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs our findings on:<br /> <br /> Point No.1:- In Affirmative<br /> Point No.2:- Affirmative in part<br /> Point No.3:- As per final Order.<br /> <br /> <br /> R E A S O N S<br /> <br /> 6. At the outset it is not at dispute that the OP has floated the Deepavali benefit scheme for the year 2005 to 2007. Now it is the contention of the complainant that she being lured away with the benefits going to get out of the said benefit scheme that too in the form of Gold thought of becoming the member of the said scheme. Not only herself but her family members were also lured away by the OP thus they too become the member of the said scheme namely the sister of the complainant Sachitha, Vathsala mother H.V.Jayamma and her brother.<br /> <br /> 7. It is contended by the complainant that OP issued the pass book with respect to the said scheme wherein each member is required to pay Rs.100/- per month for two years and after the completion of the said scheme OP promised to give the Gold of 2 ½ grams to the each card. Complainant and her relatives were prompt in making payment of the said monthly instalment. Pass book issued by the OP are signed by the OP for having received monthly instalment. Copies of the said pass books are produced. OP flatly admits the floating of the said scheme. She has not disputed the fact of issuance of pass book and her signature found in the said pass book, which is signed by her in every month.<br /> <br /> 8. The evidence of the complainant finds full corroboration with the contents of the undisputed documents. There is nothing to discard the sworn testimony of the complainant. At one breathe OP admits that sister of the complainant T.G.Sachitha a Teacher after the completion of the scheme received the benefits. Then why not she paid the said benefits to the other members of the complainant’s family namely T.G.Vathsala, H.V.Jayamma. In addition to that OP has executed some sort of undertaking in the form of a bond on 20.11.2006. Copy of the said document bearing the signature of the OP on the stamp is produced. Contents of it is not disputed by the OP. With all that OP wants to breathe hot and cold. So the approach of the OP does not appears to be bonafide and reasonable.<br /> <br /> 9. OP states that the allegations made against her comes under the purview of offence punishable U/s.420 of IPC. That means to say she otherwise admits that there is a cheating. Pleadings of the parties goes to show that complainant filed a complaint to the Police. Police called the OP and settled the dispute. Not only that the sister of the complainant T.G.Sachitha has also filed a complaint to the K.P.Agrahara Police Station. At that time also OP was called to the Police Station she was properly advised. The version of the OP speaks to the filing of the complaint to the Police and the advise given by the police. So the sum and substance as could be gathered from the available evidence and the documents is that OP floated the said scheme but after closure of the said scheme she failed to keep up her promise in giving the Gold. <br /> <br /> 10. Under such circumstances we find there is a proof of deficiency in service. Having taken note of the facts and the circumstances of the case, we find the justice will be met by directing the OP to refund what ever the amount that is collected from the complainant and her family members as noted in the pass book produced by the complainant. On the perusal of the pass book entry there is a proof of payment of in all Rs.22,800/- by the complainant and her family members. On the perusal of the complaint and the relief claimed therein complainant is not serious about collecting the Gold from the OP but she sought for the compensation of Rs.60,000/-. What is the basis for the claim of Rs.60,000/- is not known. OP having retained the amount accrued the wrongful gain to herself thereby caused wrongful loss to the complainant that too for no fault of her. Under such circumstances complainant deserves some relief. Accordingly we answer point Nos.1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following: <br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed in part. OP is directed to refund Rs.22,800/- and pay a compensation of Rs.5,000/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,200/- to the complainant. <br /> <br /> This order is to be complied within four weeks from the date of its communication.<br /> <br /> (Dictated to the Stenographer and typed in the computer and transcribed by him, verified and corrected, and then pronounced in the Open Court by us on this the 31st day of July 2008.) <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />