Sri.K.GOPALAN: PRESIDENT <br /> This is a petition filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act for an order directing the opposite party to pay Rs 4000/- with interest and cost and also Rs 10000/-<br /> as compensation.<br /> As per the averments in the complaint, the complainant joined in a scheme called ‘ Sammana Padhadi’ with the opposite party, the Manager of “ Rekha Sawmill and Furniture” . Mr. Raghu , the opposite party went to the house of the complainant and explained the advantage of the scheme . The opposite party offered there shall be a drawing of lot every month to select one person to whom one cot will be given. Thus who win the lot need not remit the amount thereafter. All others as in the usual course will be given one wooden steel furniture worth Rs 4000/-. The subscription was Rs 40 for 100 weeks. Subscription can be given Rs 40 or more every week. Believing the words of the opposite party the complainant joined in the scheme remitting an amount of Rs 100/- and gave a book bearing ‘ sammana padhadi no. 540’ . The complainant remitted the amount in accordance with the terms of the scheme. She completed the payment of Rs 4000/- on 3.7.2006 by 101 instalments. The complainant remitted the full amount since she was not lucky enough to win the lot. After remitting the full amount complainant contacted the opposite party and opposite party promised to deliver the furniture within one week. But there was no delivery. Though she had contacted again many time the furniture as promised had not been delivered. Telephone calls started disconnecting when he understand that it is the call of complainant. Even after one year lapsed the opposite party did not deliver the same. The opposite party purposefully deceiving the complainant. This is completely a deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant suffered much mental pain and financial loss. Hence this complaint.<br /> After notice the opposite party made appearance through Advocate Sri. Pramod E Vijay and the matter was posted for filing version. Since there was no representation subsequently opposite party called absent and set exparte.<br /> The main point to be considered is whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint.<br /> Oral testimony of complainant and Ext. A1 marked on her side forms the evidence.<br /> The complainant is a subscriber of the scheme introduced by the opposite party. Ext. A1 is the document in which the entry of the amount of instalments recorded. It can be seen that each entry in Ext.A1 has been countersigned. The first 10 entries together countersigned on 30.12.2004. These entries shows that complainant has remitted RS 4000/- by 73 instalments . The minimum amount to be remitted per week as per the term is only Rs 40/- But the complainant remitted Rs 50/- per week. It can be seen in the entry that the complainant paid more amount on certain occasions. On verification of Ext. A1 it can be seen that complainant remitted RS 50/- and above by 73 instalments. PW1 in her evidence deposed that “ <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> There is no need to disbelieve these words of the complainant, PW1. It is clear from Ext. A1 that the complainant has paid the entire amount of Rs 4000/- as per the terms of the scheme. The opposite party is liable to deliver the cot as promised. The non delivery of cot is clearly a deficiency in service that falls under Section 2(1)(g) which reads thus “ deficiency means any fault, imperfection, short coming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to maintain by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to a certificate” The opposite party is liable to deliver the promised cot after 100 weeks since the complainant has remitted the entire amount as per the terms of the scheme. Thus we are of opinion that the opposite party is liable to pay an amount of Rs 4000 remitted by the complainant together with a compensation of Rs 1500/- The complainant is also entitled for Rs 250/- as cost of this proceedings.<br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite party to refund Rs 4000/- remitted by the complainant together with Rs 1500 as compensation and Rs 250/- as cost of this proceedings within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which the complainant is allowed to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> Sd/-MEMBER Sd/- MEMBER Sd/-PRESIDENT<br /> Appendix<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1. Chitty book issued by the opposite party<br /> Exhibits for the opposite party – Nil<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1. Complainant<br /> Witness examined for the opposite party – Nil<br /> Forwarded/ by order <br /> Senior Superintendent<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />