ORDER<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the consumer protection Act for getting an order directing the opposite parties to give the Kodak Camera worth Rs.1300/- and also Rs.2500/- as compensation.<br /> <br /> The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The complainant purchased a Hero Honda Motor bike from the 2nd opposite party with the financial assistance by 1st opposite party. 3rd opposite party is a company who is vicariously liable for the act of 2nd opposite party. The opposite parties jointly made advertisement in the Malayala Manorama daily on 29.1.2002 offering a Kodak Camera worth Rs.1300/-free with the purchase, using the financial assistance from 1st opposite party on or before 31.1.02.Believing and attracted by the advertisement the complainant approached the 2nd opposite party . Extent ion counter of 1st opposite party No.1 was functioning inside the premises of 2nd opposite party. Complainant purchased in front of both of them and made a payment ofRs.25, 082/- then and there and 1st opposite party forward the necessary papers. Repayment of loan started from the month of2/2002. As the Hero Honda Motor bike available at that time in the show room was reported to be slightly defective the 2nd opposite party told the complainant that the bike will b e delivered at the earliest date when new consignment come and camera will also be handed over together with bike . Complainant got delivery of the bike on 15.3.2002, but camera was not given by saying that the stock of camera was exhausted and the same will be given soon the arrival of fresh piece. Believing it to be true complainant left the place. But after about 2 weeks when complainant approached opposite parties 1 and 2 they told him that he was not entitled for the camera since he has not taken delivery of bike before 31.1.2002.The complainant became much disappointed and realized that he was cheated. The complainant paid the amount and accepted the loan facility within the specific time just <br /> <br /> because he was told and promised that the purchase he made was entitled him for the free <br /> gift camera as offered in the advertisement. Lawyer notice was issued to opposite parties. <br /> <br /> Reply sent by opposite Party No.1 was quite insulting so the complainant suffered much mental agony and difficulties with financial loss.<br /> <br /> The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties filed version with the following contentions. 2nd opposite party sold Hero Honda Motor Cycle to the complainant under hypothecation to 1st opposite party. 2nd opposite party admitted that opposite parties had conducted a scheme of Kodak camera for the purchase made on or before 31.1.02 and the same was advertised in Malayala Manorama daily. The complainant purchased motor cycle on 15.3.02 as per the invoice No.2441. The scheme was not for booking or making any advance payment with intention of purchase on the future date. The 2nd opposite party contended that motor cycle available at that time was slightly defective and so delivery will be made at the earliest etc. were not true. It was also not true that 2nd opposite party had told the complainant that the camera will be handed over to the complainant when delivery was affected. The complainant is entitled to get the camera only if he had taken delivery on or before 31.10.2002. Since the purchase is out of the scheme period opposite parties are not in a position to provide the benefit of the scheme.<br /> The 1st opposite party in his version contended as follows: - The complaint is not maintainable against 1st opposite party. Advertisement in daily on 29.1.2002 was admitted and contended that 1st opposite party was preferred as one among the several financiers of the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party has not offered any free camera on purchase. The 1st opposite party also contended that 1st opposite party who is an unnecessary party and entitled for compensatory cost.<br /> On the above pleadings the following issues are framed for consideration:-1Whether the complaint is maintainable against the 1st opposite party?<br /> 2. Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?<br /> 3. Reliefs and cost.<br /> <br /> The evidence consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and documents Exts.A1 to A5 <br /> marked on the side of the complainant and oral testimony of DW1 and Ext. B1 marked on the side of opposite parties.<br /> <br /> Issue No.1:- Complainant purchased the Hero Honda Motor cycle from 2nd opposite party. 1st opposite party Centurion Bank was the financier. In the ordinary course duty of the financier limited to finance only. But the advertisement published in Ext.A1 Malayala Panorama Daily. Ext.A5 shows that it is a joint venture of opposite parties 1 to 3. More over, all the three opposite parties are benefited out of the transaction and there by impose obligation to all to ensure that the transaction are taking place as the offer appeared in the advertisement. The 1st opposite party is a necessary party until and unless document of agreement of understanding between opposite parties 1 with opposite parties 2 and 3 are being produced and proved. Thus we are of the opinion that the complaint is maintainable against 1st opposite party and the complainant is a consumer. The 1st issue is answered in favor of the complainant.<br /> Issue Nos.2 & 3:- The complainant purchased the Hero Honda Motor cycle attracted by the advertisement in the Malayala Manorama Daily dt/29.1.2002 offering a Kodak camera worth Rs.1300/-. It has been admitted by opposite parties that the opposite parties had conducted a scheme of Kodak camera for the purchase made on or before 31.1.02 and the same was advertised in” Malayalam Daily”. But opposite parties 2 and 3 contended that the complainant purchased the motor cycle on 15.3.2002 only, after the expiry of beneficial period. Opposite parties 2 and 3 further contended that the scheme was not for booking or making in advance payment with intention of purchase of future date. The complainant paid an amount of Rs.25082/- on 31.1.02 to the 2nd opposite party, Arjun Associates who issued receipt for this amount. Ext.A2 is the receipt which proves the payment. All other documents with respect to the balance amount was also signed that means the complainant promised to pay the balance amount as per the scheme which can certainly be considered as future payment. The complainant thus became purchase of Hero Honda Motor cycle on 31.1.02 itself. The motor cycle happened to be not delivered on that day only because of technical aspect and not because of the question of payment. Arrangement of payment through loans definitely amounts to future consideration and one cannot say payment t is not made before stipulated time. Ext.A3 show that the promised amount of Rs.42,305.15 has been paid on15.3.2002 which also makes it clear that the complainant is a purchaser on 31.1.2002 itself for the purchase of the scheme advertised by the opposite parties and entitled for the free camera. Here the important question arose whether the opposite parties offer was genuine or not. In the reply notice Ext.A5 opposite parties’ states that “it is a routine affair by which the sellers of products make advertisements in different Medias to canvass the customers”. The tone of the sentence is a clear indication that the opposite parties made the offer Kodak camera not to provide to customers but only to attract them which is an unfair trade practice that falls within the purview of section 2(1)(r) of Consumer Protection Act. Publication of any advertisement whether in any newspaper or otherwise for the sale or supply at a bargain price of goods or services that are not intended to be offered for sale or supply at the bargain price is a desceptive practice. Thus unfair trade practice includes the offering of gifts, prizes or other items with the intention of not providing them as offered or creating impression that something is being given or offered free of charge when it is fully or partly covered by the amount charged in the transaction as a whole. Ext.A1 is an advertisement that gives the impression that Kodak camera will be given to the customers. Thus the opposite parties are liable to deliver the camera to the complainant herein. In the light of above discussion we are of the opinion that the opposite parties are liable to give the free Kodak camera or else its price of Rs.1300/- to the complainant and Rs.1000/- as compensation together with a sum of Rs.250/- as the costs of this proceedings. Hence issue Nos.2 and 3 are answered partly in favor of the complainant.<br /> <br /> In the result, the complaint is allowed partly directing the opposite parties to give the complainant a Kodak Camera or else to pay Rs.1300/- (Rupees One thousand three hundred only) as its price and Rs.1,000/-(Rupees One thousand only) as compensation together with a sum of Rs.250/- (Rupees Two hundred and fifty only) as the costs 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 parties under the <br /> <br /> provisions of the consumer protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-<br /> President Member Member<br /> -<br /> APPENDIX<br /> Exhibits for the complainant<br /> A1.Malayala Manorama daily dt.29.1.02.<br /> A2.Phto copy of receipt issued by Arjun Associates dt.31.1.02.<br /> A3.Bill for an amount of Rs.42,305,15 dt.15.3.02<br /> A4.Copy of the lawyer notice dt.14.6.02.<br /> A5.Reply notice dt.22.6.02 issued by OP1.<br /> <br /> Exhbits for the opposite parties: <br /> B1,Copy of the Invoice dt.15.3.2002<br /> Witness examined for the complainant<br /> PW1,Complainant<br /> <br /> Witness examined for the opposite parties<br /> DW1.M.K.Sathyan<br /> <br /> /forwarded by order/<br /> <br /> <br /> SeniorSuperintendent<br /> <br /> <br /> Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum,<br /> Kannur.<br /> <br /> <br />