O R D E R Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P., President. Case of the petitioner filed on 6..12..2008 is as follows: Petitioner is the customer of the opposite parties who are the manufacturers-dealers-service providers of Videocon Products of Home Appliances. . Opposite party advertised money back scheme with warranty in -2- the year 1998 and offered Videocon TV under Money Back Scheme. Petitioner purchased a colour TV Model No. 5333 R and obtained security deposit receipt . On maturity of the money back scheme opposite parties offered another scheme known as Videocon Bond Triple Dhamakka offer during 2003. 3rd opposite party canvassed the petitioner and persuaded to join for the Bond Triple Dhamakka under their scheme ‘B’. The products in the scheme are refrigerator, CTV and Washing Machine. . Consideration for the scheme B was offered to the petitioner by surrendering the security deposit receipt under the Money Back Scheme and Rs. 9300/-. In return opposite parties offered selected products, 20% discount coupon, Money Back Certificate and maturity amount of Rs. 10,000/-. On assurance given to the petitioner by the 3rd opposite party petitioner joined the scheme by surrendering the Bond and paying Rs. 9300/-. On confirmation of the acceptance of the offer opposite parties delivered the selected products but deferred the 20% discount coupon and bond for the money back certificate having maturity value of Rs. 10,000/- Petitioner approached the 3rd opposite parties office but they replied with lame excuses. On attaining maturity petitioner demanded 20% discount coupon and refund of the bond amount but the opposite parties have not cared to heed to keep up their offering honouring the maturity amount to the petitioner. On 30..9..2008 and on 5..11..2008 petitioner caused to issue letters to the opposite parties. Opposite parties did not heed to the demand of the petitioner. According to the petitioner act of the opposite party is a clear deficiency in service. So, he prays for a direction to the opposite parties to -3- pay Rs. 10,000/- towards value of the bond with 12% interest from 1..10..2008 till payment. Petitioner claim 20% discount coupon offered to the petitioner. Petitioner claims Rs. 3,000/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings. 4th opposite party was impleaded as per order on IA 519/09 Dtd: 10..8..2009. First opposite party entered appearance and has not filed any version. Notice of opposite party 2 returned with endorsement stating that company is merged. 3rd Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that the petition is bad for mis joinder of parties. According to the 3rd opposite party there is no legal entity by name Videocon International Ltd. O n 7..12..2005 Videocon International Ltd. is merged with Videocon Industries Ltd. 3rd opposite party is an employee of Videocon Industries Ltd. and he is not at all personally liable and concerned with the claim of the petitioner. 3rd opposite party contented that petitioner has deliberately not produced literature of “bond triple dhamaka scheme. Videocon International Ltd. with a view to offer discounts and other benefits to the bond holders, has framed two schemes (i) Bond Maximum offer and (2) Triple Dhamaka Offer. Petitioner had participated only in Bond maximum offer and not triple Dhamaka offer. In triple Dhamaka offer 3 products were available (i) Refrigerator S 171 TT (2) CTV 3637 R SNAZZ and (iii) Washing Machine VNA 36 TD Delux. Petitioner has not purchased those products on the contrary, he participated in Bond Maximum offer where products are CTV 5437 R, Refrigerator S 173 Delux and Washing Machine 36 TDX. So according to the opposite party, petitioners is not entitled -4- for triple Dhamaka offer. So, 3rd opposite party prays for a dismissal of the petition with their costs. Points for determinations are: i) Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party? ii) Relief and costs. Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 to A7 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 to B3 documents on the part of the opposite parties. Point No. 1 Crux of the case of the petitioner is that he joined in the Triple Dhamaka Offer by surrendering the security deposit under money back scheme. On confirmation of the acceptance of the offer opposite parties delivered the selected products ie. Refrigerator, CTV and Washing Machine. But opposite party deferred the 20% discount coupon and money back certificate with maturity value of 10,000/-as offered. According to the 3rd opposite party, petitioner participated only in Bond Maximum Offer. The products were given on discount to the customers. Petitioner purchased the products under Bond Maximum offer ie. CTV 5437 R, Refrigetor S-173 Delux and Washing Machine 36 TDX . According to opposite party said products were totally different products available under triple Dhamaka offer. The products of the Triple Dhamaka Offer were (1) Refrigetor S 171 TT (2) CTV 3637 R SLAZZ (3) -5- Washing Machine VNA 36 TD Delux. Opposite party produced the receipt cum delivery note said document is marked as Ext. B1. Copy of brochure of Triple Dhamaka with Money Back Offer is produced the said document is marked as Ext. B3. Opposite party has not produced any brochure with regard to Videocon Bond Maximise offer. Admittedly petitioner purchased the refrigerator CTV and Washing Machine. Even though the Model numbers of the products were different the products under Videocon Triple Dhamaca offer were refrigerator, CTV and Washing Machine. Opposite party has not produced any document to prove the products involved according to them in Bond Maximise Offer. Petitioner also produced the brochure with regard to the scheme and same is marked as Ext. A4. Opposite party has not produced any document to prove that the products in Ext. A4 are the products involved in Bond Maximise offer. The petitioner issued a lawyers notice for getting the 20% discount coupon and money back certificate with maturity amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Lawyer’s notice is marked as Ext. A6. Nothing has produced on record by the opposite party to prove that any reply was issued to the petitioner. In our view contention of opposite party that the petitioner was participated in another offer at a later stage is a clear deficiency in service. Since first and second opposite parties are merged in 4h opposite party. 4th opposite party is also liable for the offers rendered by the first and second opposite party. Point No. 1 is found accordingly. -6- Point No. 2 In view of the finding in point No. 1. Petition is allowed. 3rd and 4th opposite party’s are directed to pay the petitioner an amount of Rs. 10,000/- towards value of the bond with 12% interest from 1..10..2008 till the date of payment. Opposite party is also directed to pay assured 20% discount coupon to the petitioner. If not possible petitioner is entitled for Rs. 5,000/- as compensation. Since, interest is allowed no compensation is ordered. Opposite party is ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 2,000/- as cost of the proceedings. Order shall be complied with within one month of receipt of the order. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 15th day of June, 2010. Sri. Santhosh Kesavanath P. President Sd/- Smt. Bindhu M. Thomas, Member Sd/- APPENDIX Documents of the Petitioner Ext. A1: Photo copy of Money Back Scheme warranty Ext. A2: Photo copy of the Money back scheme security deposit receipt Dtd: 18..3..1998 Ext. A3: Copy of the brochure triple Dhamaca offer Ext. A4: Copy of calculation made by 3rd opposite party Ext. A5: Copy of warranty issued by the opposite party on 31..10..2003. Ext. A6 Copy of registered letter Ext. A7: Copy of postal receipt Documents for the Opposite party Ext. B1: Receipt cum delivery note Ext. B2: Security deposit receipt dtd: 18..3..98 Ext. B3: Brochure of Triple Dhamoka offer. By Order, Senior Superintendent
| | HONORABLE Bindhu M Thomas, Member | HONORABLE Santhosh Kesava Nath P, PRESIDENT | HONORABLE K.N Radhakrishnan, Member | | 
