DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

Civil Station, Palakkad 678001, Kerala

Dated this the 20^th day of March, 2009

Present: Smt.Seena.H, President

Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member

Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member

C.C.No.102/2008

Premkumar.MP,

S/o.Prabhakaran Kartha,

Pothengil House,

Nellaya.P.O,

(Via)Cherpalchery,

Palakkad – 679 335 - Complainant

(Party in person)

Vs

Jagdeesh Menon,

Owner,

Ambadi Plus,

Robinson Road,

Palakkad – 1.

or

Jagadeesh Menon,

Thejas,

Near KSE Cattle Feed,

Kallikkad Road,

Othungode,

P.O.Thirunellayi,

Palakkad 678 020. - Opposite party

(By Adv.T.U.Shaik Abdulla)

O R D E R

By Smt.Seena.H, Member

Case of the complainant is as follows:

In pursuance of advertisement issued by the opposite party in Mathrubhoomi daily complainant approached the opposite party, who is the owner of new electronic shop named 'Ambadi Plus'. The scheme stated in the advertisement was explained to the complainant by the opposite party. As per the scheme, a person who is

depositing an amount of Rs.4,000/- with the opposite party shall be entitled to purchase electronic goods for an amount of Rs.4,960/- after 2 years. Complainant joined this scheme. Opposite party issued a receipt for the acceptance of Rs.4,000/- on 26/08/2005. A four burner gas stove was also given to the complainant as free gift at the time of joining the scheme. Later after 2 years as per the advertisement, complainant approached the opposite party for buying electronic goods worth Rs.4,960/-. To his astonishment he found the shop closed. When enquired, opposite party promised to refund the amount within 2 weeks. Complainant has contacted the opposite party several times but opposite party was not ready to refund the amount. The act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

2. Opposite party entered appearance and filed vakalath. But no version or affidavit was filed.

3. Complainant filed affidavit and Exts.A1 and A2 marked on the side of complainant.

4. Issues for consideration

1. Whether unfair trade practice is exercised by the opposite party?

2. If so, reliefs and costs?

5. Issue No.1: Complainant produced Ext.A1, advertisement published in Mathrubhoomi daily dt.24.8.05. Terms of the give and take scheme was elaborately stated in the daily. As per the scheme “a person who is depositing an amount of Rs.4,000/- with the opposite party shall be entitled to purchase electronic goods for an amount of Rs.4,960/- after 2 years”. Ext.A2 evidences the payment of Rs.4,000/-. It can be seen that the opposite party has not acted as per the advertisement. As per the section 2(l)(r) clause 3 of the Consumer Protection Act “offering of gift, price and other items with intention of not providing them is an unfair trade practice”. In view of the above circumstances we are of the view that the act of opposite party amounts to unfair trade practice.

6. In the result, complaint allowed. Opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) as compensation for the financial loss and mental agony caused to the complainant and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.

7. Pronounced in the open court on this 20^th day of March, 2009

Sd/-

Seena.H

President

Sd/-

Preetha.G.Nair

Member

Sd/-

Bhanumathi.A.K

Member

Appendix

Witness examined on the side of complainant

Nil

Witness examined on the side of opposite party

Nil

Exhibits marked on the side of complainant

Ext.A1 – Advertisement published in the Mathrubhoomi daily dt.24/8/2005

Ext.A2 – Cash receipt dt.26/8/2005 for Rs.4,000/-

Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party

Nil

Costs (allowed)

Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) allowed as cost of the proceedings.