BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

PRESENT

SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 456/2004 Filed on 08.12.2004

Dated : 31.07.2009

Complainant:

Geetha Kumari. D, T.C 40/1200, Madathuvilakathu Veedu, Manacaud P.O, Thiruvananthapuram.

(By adv. R. Rajesh)

Opposite parties:

1. Managing Director, Videocon International, 14 km. Stone, Aurungabad, Paithan Road, Chitengaon, Tq. Paitan, Dist., Aurungabad-431 105.

    

2. Proprietor, Singsons Electronics, M.G. Road, Thiruvananthapuram – 695 001.

    

   (By adv. Muramel A.N. Shaji)

Addl. Opposite party:

3. The Managing Director, Reliance Infocomm Ltd., Thane-Belapur Road, Koperkhairane, Navi Mumbai – 400 709.

(By adv. Padmini. N)

This O.P having been heard on 15.06.2009, the Forum on 31.07.2009 delivered the following:

ORDER

SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER

Brief facts of the case are as follows: The complainant purchased a Videocon television set from the 2^nd opposite party on 13.09.2003. At the time of purchase, the 2^nd opposite party told that there is a mobile set also with Videocon television set as 'Onam Festival Offer' which prompted the complainant to buy the television set. When the complainant demanded the set after purchase, the 2^nd opposite party told that at present no mobile set is available with them, it will be provided after two weeks. Thereafter the complainant approached the 2^nd opposite party several times. But not only the complainant was not given the mobile set but also the 2^nd opposite party told her that as the offer is valid only upto September she will not be given the mobile set now. The complainant issued an advocate notice on 31.01.2004 to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties. But they failed to give any reply. Hence this complaint.

In this case the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are the Managing Director, Videocon International and Proprietor, Singsons Electronics and the 3^rd opposite party is M/s Reliance Infocomm Ltd. All the opposite parties filed version. In the version 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties stated that there was no offer made by these opposite parties during Onam festival. But the opposite parties were given a participation opportunity to its customers who purchased products of Videocon brand name in the scheme offered by the Reliance India Mobile for subscribing its mobile phone connection during the Onam festival. The scheme offered by Reliance India Mobile was paying only Rs. 501/- for subscribing a mobile phone. This scheme was a limited period offer. The opposite parties offer was that, for its Onam purchase customers can avail a free subscription opportunity of Reliance mobile phone by presenting the coupon issued to them during the purchase of Videocon products. The agreement with Reliance India mobile was that those customers presenting the coupon should get a free subscription opportunity. This was by the Videocon company will take care of initial payment to be made for joining the scheme offered by Reliance India Mobile. The 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties further stated that they have no connection with the Reliance India Mobile and hence they prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.

M/s Reliance Infocomm Ltd. is the 3^rd opposite party in this case. 3^rd opposite party filed version and submitted that they have no knowledge of any offer. They stated that the complaint itself does not contain any specific allegation against this opposite party. There is no consumer relationship between the 3^rd opposite party and the complainant. And also at the time of argument the complainant stated that no relief is sought against the 3^rd opposite party.

In this case complainant and opposite parties filed affidavits. Complainant has produced 5 documents and she has been examined as PW1. Nobody cross examined her.

Points that would arise for consideration are:-

1. Whether there is unfair trade practice and deficiency in service from the side of the opposite parties 1 & 2?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs.

Points (i) & (ii):- As per the complainant at the time when she bought the Videocon T.V Set, the company had offered a Reliance mobile phone as festival offer because it was Onam season which prompted her to purchase the television set. But the opposite parties have not complied with their promise. As per the complainant, the act of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice and deficiency in their service. To prove her allegation, the complainant has filed proof affidavit and marked 5 documents as Exts. P1 to P5. The opposite parties did not cross examine the complainant. Hence the affidavit filed by the complainant stands unchallenged. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the original bill of the Videocon T.V dated 13.09.2003. Ext. P2 is the copy of advocate notice issued by the complainant to the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties demanding to make necessary arrangement to fulfil the offer given by the 1^st opposite party. Ext. P3 is the postal receipt of the notice. Exts. P4 and P5 are acknowledgement cards signed by the opposite parties. In this case the complainant did not produce any document regarding the offer of a Reliance Mobile Phone. But the opposite parties admitted that the offer was that, for its Onam purchase customers can avail a free subscription opportunity of Reliance mobile phone by presenting the coupon issued to them during the purchase of Videocon products. But the complainant stated that at the time of purchasing the T.V set the opposite parties assured that the mobile set will be given later. For that assurance, the complainant approached the opposite parties several times. But they did not turn up to carry out their promise. Aggrieved by this the complainant sent lawyer's notice to the opposite parties and the opposite parties accepted notice, but they did not respond to that. If at all there was no offer, the opposite parties should have sent a reply accordingly. From the above said facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that there was an offer from the side of 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties to attract the customers to purchase their products at Onam season. But the opposite parties did not perform their promise as per their offer. Hence the act of the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice to attract customers with false advertisements. Hence the complaint is allowed.

In the result, the 1^st and 2^nd opposite parties are directed to pay Rs. 2,000/- as compensation for their unfair trade practice and also shall pay Rs. 1,500/- as costs of the proceedings. Time for compliance one month from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter 12% annual interest shall also be paid to the entire amount till the date of realization.

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.

Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the 31^st day of July 2009.

BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER

G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT

S.K. SREELA : MEMBER

O.P. No. 456/2004

APPENDIX

I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS :

PW1 - Geetha Kumari

II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :

P1 - Cash Bill dated 13.09.2003 for Rs. 9990/- issued by 2^nd

opposite party.

P2 - Copy of advocate notice issued to opposite party.

P3 - Postal receipts (2 Nos.) dated 31.01.2004

P4 - Postal acknowledgement card dated 01.02.2004.

P5 - Postal acknowledgement card dated 07.02.2004.

III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS :

NIL

IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :

NIL

PRESIDENT