By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President: O.P. No.111/2003: The complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act. The gist of the complaint is as given below. The Complainant is a purchaser of a Television set in Model No.5412 Serial No. 67778 which was purchased from the 2nd Opposite Party. The Opposite Party made an offer of Videocon Money Back Scheme to the purchaser of the T.V set. The Complainant is to be given the benefit of money back scheme paying Rs.14,990/- by the 1st Opposite Party through the 2nd Opposite Party who is a dealer from where the T.V was purchased. The scheme was as such that Rs.14,990/- would be given back on completion of 7 years. The Complainant approached the dealer to get back the benefit of the offer after 7 years. Even after the repeated request of the Complainant the Opposite Parties were not ready to give the Complainant the amount which was already offered by them. Before the maturity of the amount, upon request of the Complainant, a receipt and customer counter foil was given. The Opposite Parties had already offered a warranty of 7 years but the request for the warranty card was not considered by the Opposite Parties. 2. The non issuance of the security deposit receipt and warranty card as promised by the Opposite Party is an unfair trade practise and deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to issue the security deposit receipt for Rs.14,990/- or to pay Rs.14,990/-, the warranty card and the compensation of Rs.20,000/- along with cost to the Complainant. 3. The Opposite Parties filed version on their appearance. The brief of the version of 1st Opposite Party is as follows: The 1st Opposite party is the manufacture of Videocon Colour T.V. The 2nd Opposite Party was a dealer of the company where as due to some sales disputes the authorisation of the dealer was canceled. 4. The Money Back Scheme was introduced by the 1st Opposite Party in the year 1998 to promote sales of the T.V product. The terms and conditions of the scheme was that a portion of the retail price paid by the purchaser was kept in deposit and which was paid back to the purchaser after the expiry of 5 to 6 years which was relied on the model of T.V purchased. The favour of the scheme was allowed to three Models (1) No.5412R ( maximum retail price Rs. 19,490/-) (2) Model No. 5410R (maximum retail price Rs.16,990/-) (3) Model No.5313R (maximum retail price Rs.13,990/-). The respective money back scheme offers were Model No. 5412R money back offer Rs.14,990/-, Model No.5410R money back offer Rs.12,990/-, Model No. 5313 R money back offer Rs.9,990/-. The Complainant purchased T.V Model 5412 at the price of Rs.14,990/- in discount of Rs.4,500/-. The purchased T.V was given discount of Rs.4,500/- and as a result the money back scheme is not entitled for the Complainant. The party was neither paid the maximum retail price offerable for the particular type of T.V nor deserving for benefit of the scheme. 5. The 2nd Opposite Party acted behind adjudication of the consumers in order to use this situation in a different manner to take revenge for cancellation of the dealership. More over the 2nd Opposite Party has not made any information to the 1st Opposite Party regarding the claim of the customers. The 2nd Opposite Party has not submitted any application for claim of the security deposit. The Complainant is not entitled to get the security deposit nor the amount of the money back scheme. No additional warranty is deserved by the Complainant. The claim of the Complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. 6. The version in brief filed by the 2nd Opposite party is as follows:- The complaint is not maintainable and it is to be dismissed. The 2nd Opposite Party is the dealer of the product produced by the 1st Opposite Party. The purchase of Videocon T.V set model No.5412 Serial No. RFA-67778 was when the money back scheme was in continuity. The scheme envisaged that the purchaser of the particular model T.V would get Rs. 14,990/- from the 1st Opposite Party on completion of 7 years from the date of purchase of new T.V set provided the Complainant produce the receipt of the security deposit issued by the 1st Opposite Party. The Complainant had to obtain the security deposit receipt on application immediately after the purchase of the new Videocon T.V set. The 2nd Opposite Party forwarded the application to the 1st Opposite Party immediately on receiving the request from the Complainant. The issuance of the security deposit receipt is to be done by the 1st Opposite Party and upon which the 2nd Opposite party has nothing to do with. The maturity period for the money back scheme is not at reached. There is no latches on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party. Even after the repeated demands the 1st Opposite Party has not issued the warranty card. The 2nd Opposite Party is not a necessary party in this dispute. More over there is no deficiency in service in any respect on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party. Hence the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the 2nd Opposite Party. O.P. No. 112/2003 7. The brief of the complaint is as follows:- The Complainant is a purchaser of the Videocon T.V. Set in Model No. 5412 R Serial No. K7A 6962. At the time of purchase there was an offer that the purchaser would be paid Rs.14,990/- on completion of 7 years, the maturity period from the date of purchase of the T.V. Set. The application was given by the Complainant on the very same day of purchasing T.V. The 2nd Opposite Party issued a customer counter foil and cash bill No.3085 to the Complainant. The Complainant was not given the receipt of security deposit for Rs.14,990/- even after the repeated request. The purchase of the T.V was influenced by the offer of Opposite Parties. There was also the offer of 7 years warranty for the product. How ever the Opposite Party failed to give the warranty card and receipt of security deposit. The non issuance of the warranty card and receipt of the security deposit is a deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to issue the receipt of security deposit or to pay Rs.14,990/-. The Opposite Parties may also be directed to pay compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the Complainant. 8. The version in brief of the 1st Opposite Party:- The 1st Opposite Party terminated the dealership of the 2nd Opposite Party due to the sales disputes. The 2nd Opposite party has prejudicial interest against the Company. 9. The money back scheme of the 1st Opposite Party was introduced to promote the sale of their T.V products in the year 1998. The scheme is with an effect that the purchaser deposited a portion of the amount in deposit and it would be paid back on expiry of 5 to 6 years. Only 3 types of colour Televisions were included in the scheme. (1) Model 5412 R - Money Back Offer Rs. 14,990/- (the maximum retail Price Rs.19,490/-). (2) Model 5410 R - Money Back Offer Rs.12,990/- (the maximum retail Price Rs.16,990/-). (3) Model 5313 R - Money Back Offer Rs. 9,990/- (the maximum retail price Rs. 13,990/-). The purchase of the model 5412 R T.V by the Complainant was at the price Rs. 14,990/-. The price received was after deducting the discount and in such a case the money back offer is not affordable. The deposit part of the price payable by the Complainant was not received by the 2nd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party targeted the 1st Opposite Party to meet the ends of rivalry on the termination of the dealership. The claim of the 2nd Opposite Party that the application and other connected records were forwarded to the 1st Opposite Party is absolutely false. The Complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the scheme or any additional warranty coverage. The complaint filed without any ground is not sustainable and it is to be dismissed with cost. 10. The version in brief of the 2nd Opposite Party is as follows:- The purchase of Videocon T.V set in Model No. 5412 R Serial No. K7A 6962 during the operation period Videocon Money Back Scheme on 14.3.1998 is admitted. The scheme declared the offer of paying back Rs. 14,990/- on completion of 7 years from the date of purchase. The benefit of the scheme would be available on producing the receipt of security deposit issued by the 1st Opposite party. The application forwarded by the Complainant to get the receipt of the security deposit was sent to the 1st Opposite Party on the very same day when purchase effected. The issuance of the receipt of security deposit is vested with the 1st Opposite Party. How ever the maturity period was not crossed to get the benefit for the Complainant. The 2nd Opposite Party has done the duty promptly and without any latches. The warranty card also to be issued by the 1st Opposite Party. The formalities kept up by the Complainant and the documents were forwarded to the 1st Opposite Party. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party and the complaint is to be dismissed with cost. O.P. No. 114/2003 11. The sum up of the complaint:- The Complainant purchased the Videocon Television in model No. 5432 R Serial No. 18A 844. The purchase was under influence of advertisement of money back scheme as per which the purchaser would be given Rs. 14,990/- on completion of 7 years after the purchase of the T.V. Set. According to the Opposite parties in order to get the benefit of the scheme security deposit receipt is to be forwarded. On the very same day of purchase the Complainant gave the application for the receipt of the security deposit for Rs.14,990/-. Even after the repeated requests, the Opposite Parties were not ready to give the complainant the receipt of the security deposit nor the warranty card. The non issuance of the receipt of security deposit and warranty card are deficiency in service and unfair trade practise. There may be an order directing the Opposite Parties to give the Complainant the receipt of the security deposit or to pay Rs.14,990/-, the warranty card is also to be received by the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 12. The Opposite parties filed version. The contentions in brief of the 1st Opposite Party: The 1st Opposite Party is the manufacturer of the Videocon Television. The 2nd Opposite Party is only the former dealer of the company. The dealership was terminated due to some sales disputes. 13. The Money Back Scheme was introduced in the year 1998 to promote the sale of T.V products. The terms and conditions of the particular scheme was that a portion of the price given was kept in deposit and it was given back on completion of the maturity period. The benefit of the scheme was alloted to 3 types of colour televisions. 1. Model 5412 R Maximum Retail Price Rs.19,490/- ( Money Back Offer Rs.14,990/-). 2. Model 5412 R Maximum Retail Price Rs.16,990/- ( Money Back Offer Rs.12,990/-). 3. Model 5313 R Maximum Retail Price Rs.13,990/- ( Money Back Offer Rs.9,990/-). The purchase of the colour TV by the Complainant was at the price of 14,990/- which means the Complainants got the discount of Rs. 4,500/- at the time of purchase. In such a stage the benefit of Money Back Scheme cannot be afforded to the Complainant. The deposit part of the maximum retail price was not credited in to the account of the Opposite Party. 14. The termination of the dealership of the 2nd Opposite Party and the rivalry reasoned by that is an another cause of lodging complaint against the 1st Opposite Party which all are done by the help of the 2nd Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party was not communicated so far by any of the Complainants of such a scheme and its repudiation. The claim of the 2nd Opposite Party that all the connected records for the claim were forwarded to the 1st Opposite Party is absolutely false. The complainant is not entitled to get the receipt of security deposit nor any additional warranty coverage. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. 15. The version of the 2nd Opposite Party in brief:- The purchase of the T.V in Model 5432R with serial No. 184-844 during the period of the offer of money back scheme is admitted by the 2nd Opposite Party. The offer of the scheme was as such that on completion of the maturity period the purchaser of the T.V would be paid Rs.14,990/-. The benefit of the scheme would be considered on producing the receipt of the security deposit issued by the 1st Opposite Party. Every purchaser of the particular brand of T.V has to give an application after purchase for the receipt of the security deposit. The application given by the Complainant was forwarded to the 1st Opposite Party on 08.04.1998 and it was also done without any delay. The issuance of the receipt of the security deposit and warranty card is left to the 1st Opposite Party. As a dealer the responsibility on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party was perfectly done. The 2nd Opposite Party is not a necessary party and more over there is no unfair trade practise or the deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the 2nd Opposite Party. O.P. No.115/2003 16. The complaint in brief is as follows:- The Complainant is a purchaser of Videocon Television at the price of Rs.14,990/- from the 2nd Opposite Party's shop. The purchase of the T.V was influenced by the offer of the Opposite Parties that on completion of 7 years from the date of purchase the purchaser would be given Rs.14,990/- as an offer under a special scheme. The Opposite Parties also offered the warranty of 7 years. 17. After the purchase of the T.V even after the repeated request the Opposite Parties were not ready to give the warranty card and the receipt of the security deposit. The non issuance of warranty card and the receipt of the security deposit is a deficiency in service. There may be an order directing the Opposite Party to issue the receipt of security deposit for Rs.14,990/- or to pay Rs.14,990/- to the Complainant. The warranty card is also to be given to the Complainant along with compensation of Rs.20,000/-. 18. The Opposite Parties filed version:- The 1st Opposite Party contended that the benefit of the scheme is not entitled for the Complainant. The 1st Opposite Party made an offer for their T.V products to promote the sales in the year 1998. A part of the purchase amount is kept in deposit by the 1st Opposite Party till the expiry of 5 to 6 years, the maturity period for the repayment of the amount. Only 3 types of the colour televisions were included in this scheme. Model 5412 R Money Back Offer Rs.14,990/-, Model 5410 R Money Back Offer Rs.12,990/-, Model 5313 R Money Back Offer Rs.9,990/- . The purchase of T.V model 5412 R by the Complainant was at the price of Rs.14,990/- which means the Complainant got the discount of 4,500/-. The maximum price which was to be given by the Complainant was not paid and as a result the complaint is not entitled for the money back scheme. The benefit of the money back scheme is payable to the purchaser who paid the maximum price and the portion of the purchase amount which was kept in security deposit. The allegations of this complainant and other complainants are nothing but the cooked up story of the 2nd Opposite Party who is in ally with the Complainants due to the termination of the dealership. The claim of the 2nd Opposite Party that the application and the connected records produced before the 2nd Opposite Party was forwarded to the 1st Opposite Party is absolutely false. The complainant is not entitled for any claim of the scheme. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the Opposite Party. 19. The 2nd Opposite Party filed version. The sum up of the version is as follows: The sale of the T.V in model No. 5412 R Serial No. K8E 09787 to the Complainant is an admitted one. The Complainant purchased the T.V while the offer of money back scheme was in effect. As per the terms of the offer the purchaser of the T.V set would be paid Rs. 14,990/- on completion of 7 years for which the purchaser had to produce the receipt of security deposit issued by the 1st Opposite Party. The issuance of the receipt of security deposit was on application, the 2nd Opposite Party forwarded the application of the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party on the very same day it was received. The obligation on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party is perfectly done the claim of the Complainant is made before reaching the maturity period. Any how the person who produces the receipt of security deposit is only entitled for the offer of the scheme. The 2nd Opposite Party is not a necessary party. The rest of the responsibility to comply with the offer lies on the 1st Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cots to the 2nd Opposite Party. 20. The complaint in O.P. No. 111/03 filed petition for the joined trial of O.P. No. 111/03, O.P. No. 112/03, O.P. No.113/03, O.P. No.114/03, O.P. No.115/03 since the facts alleged in all the cases are one and the same and the Opposite Parties are also same as a result the joined trial of the Complaints are allowed. In O.P. No. 113/03 the Complainant was no more and no steps were taken which resulted the dismissal of the Complaint on 10.7.2008. 21. The Complainants filed documents Exts. A1 to A15 are marked for the Complainants. For Opposite Parties documents Exts. B1 to B19 are marked. Both the Complainants and Opposite Parties gave oral testimony in support of their contentions. 22. The points which are to be considered in O.P. No. 111/03, O.P. No. 112/03, O.P. No.114/03, and O.P. No.115/03 are one and the same and the points in consideration are:- 1. Is there any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties? 2. Relief and cost. 23. Point No.1:- The case of the Complainants are that the offer of the Opposite Parties in purchase of the T.V set was not complied with. In order to promote the sale of the T.V set by the Opposite Parties they made an offer titled as money back scheme. The scheme envisages the payment of Rs.14,990/- to the purchaser of the T.V on completion of 7 years from the date of purchase. The allegations of the Complainant is supported by the documents produced. Ext.A1 is the advertisement in the news paper it is also undisputed. Ext.A1 details that the purchaser of Bazooka 5412 R Model T.V will be paid Rs. 14,990/- after 6 years from the date of purchase more over a warranty for 7 years was also given in that offer. The dealer in the advertisement is the 2nd Opposite Party. 24. The 1st Opposite Party contended that the benefit of the schemes were not payable to all the purchasers of the T.V and it was restricted to three models of T.V. Apart from that the Complainants in all the 4 cases will not get the benefits of the scheme as the purchase was not the products made in 1998. In Ext.A1 the 1st Opposite Party had not made any stipulation that the benefit of the schemes are only confined to the models in 1998. An another contentions of the 1st Opposite Party is that all the complaints are instigated by the 2nd Opposite Party to meet the ends of rivalry due to the termination of dealership. 25. The T.V sold to the Complainants belonged to model 5412 R. The Service Officer of Videocon appeared for the 2nd Opposite Party who is examined as OPW1. According to the oral testimony of OPW1 and from the documents produced the benefit of the scheme is available to the models 5313 R, 5410 R, 5412 R. The advertisement given by the 1st Opposite Party does not specify any terms and conditions such that the models belonging to the prior period of 1998 is not entitled for the benefit of the scheme. 26. The another contentions of the 1st Opposite Party is that the 2nd Opposite Party has deliberately misused the benefit of the scheme as a weapon in their hand against the termination of dealership. No action was taken against the 2nd Opposite Party and further from the oral testimony of OPW1. it is admitted that during the period when the scheme was running the 2nd Opposite Party had been the dealer of the 1st Opposite Party. The 1st Opposite Party had no such a case that the 2nd Opposite Party sold the T.V to the purchasers and that were not belonged to the coverage of schemes. The 2nd Opposite Party the Proprietor of Surya concern is examined as OPW2. According to him more than 600 Televisions were sold it is also admitted by the 1st Opposite Party. The purchase of the T.V from the manufacture were done by giving D.D or cheque. The price of the Televisions are to be paid in advance. As per the Exts B5, B6 and B7, the invoice showing the purchase of T.V by the 2nd Opposite Party, 12 Bazooka 1412 R model Televisions were purchased by the dealer. 27. The 1st Opposite Party has not produced any evidence to establish that the offer of the money back scheme were confined to the models during the period 1998 March to 2000 December. More over no where in the advertisement the Opposite Parties limited their responsibility for the T.V made for a particular period as they contented. Ext. A2 is the copy of the cash bill issued to the Complainant in O.P. No. 111/03 the model specified in the bill is 5412R serial No. D7A-67778 the rate for the TV is Rs. 14,990/- and the bill is dated 18.3.1998. The copy of the cash bill issued to the complainant in O.P. No. 112/03 is dated 14.3.1998. The model of the T.V is 1412 R with the serial No.K7A 6962 the price given for the same is Rs.14,990/-, Ext. A8 is the copy of the cash bill given to the Complainant in O.P. No.114/01. The rate of T.V in that case is 14,990/- and the model is 5432R. The Ext.A10 is the copy of the Cash bill given to the Complainant in O.P. No. 115/01 the bill dated 23.6.1998 is given to the Complainant and the purchase of a model 5412R the price of the T.V is 14,990/-. It is pertinent to not that the T.V in all the 4 cases were purchased in between march and June of 1998. The Complainants examined an independent witness who is examined as PW2. Ext.A4 is the photo copy of the cash bill given by the 2nd Opposite Party. According to him he was benefited the maximising bonus offer from the Opposite Parties and the price of the T.V belonging to the same scheme paid by him was Rs.14,990/-. In oral testimony the Service Officer of the 1st Opposite Party it is admitted that they could not produce the document showing that the money back scheme is the maximised amount of the deposit collected. The Televisions belonging to the 4 complaints are the model for which the offer was given. The 1st Opposite Party has made no allegation in their version that the Televisions in make prior to 1998 were drawn under the scheme deliberately by the 2nd Complainant. It is also admitted by the 1st Opposite Party that the application for the offer were given taken into consideration of the Televisions sold to the dealers no action was taken by the 1st Opposite Party against the dealer the 2nd Opposite Party if any misuse of the offer was done. The Televisions in all the complaints belonged to the scheme of offer. The 1st Opposite Party is company which made the offer of the scheme, the 2nd Opposite Party is the dealer the responsibility on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party is to boost up the business relying on the offer of the company. The benefit of the scheme is to be contributed by the 1st Opposite Party. According to the dealer the application and other documents were directly collected by the representatives of the company. The non issuance of the scheme offer is a deficiency in service and unfair trade practice the point No.1 is found accordingly. 28. Point No. 2:- In O.P. No. 111/2003, O.P. No. 112/2003, O.P. No. 114/2003, O.P. No. 115/2003 the Complainant prayed for paying back the amount paid towards the price of the T.V which is Rs. 14,990/- along with warranty card for one year and along with compensation. The issuance of the warranty card after laps of years is not necessitated and as such the receipt towards the security deposit is also found not in time. The Complainant is be paid back the amount paid towards the price of the T.V. The Complainant in O.P. No. 111/2003 is to be given Rs. 14,990/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand Nine hundred and Ninety only) along with compensation of Rs. 2,000/- ( Rupees Two thousand only) and cost Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). 29. In O.P. No. 112/2003 the Complainant has paid Rs. 14,990/- towards the price of the T.V as per the offer of the scheme made by the 1st Opposite Party. The value of the T.V would have given back. The receipt for the security deposit and warranty card are not necessary to be given to the Complainant in laps of time. The 2nd Opposite Party is exonerated from the liability the Complainant in O.P. 112/2003 is to pay Rs. 14,990/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand Nine hundred and Ninety only) by the 1st Opposite Party along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) and cost Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only). 30. In O.P. No. 114/2003 the price of the T.V given by the Complainant is Rs.14,990/-. Abide by the scheme of the offer the Complainant is entitled for the receival of the amount paid towards the price of the T.V. The prayer of the Complainant for the direction to issue the receipt of security deposit along with warranty card need not be discussed in laps of time. The Complainant in O.P. No. 114/2003 is to be given Rs.14,990/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand Nine hundred and Ninety only) along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) and Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) towards the cost. In O.P. No. 115/2203 as per Ext.A10 the price given by the Complainant for the purchase of the T.V is 14,990/-. The Complainant is entitled to get back from the 1st Opposite Party Rs.14,990/-. The receipt of the security deposit is not necessary for the Complainant instead the value of the T.V paid is to be given back. The Complainant is to be given Rs.14,990/- (Rupees Fourteen thousand Nine hundred and Ninety only) along with compensation of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand only) together with the cost of Rs. 1,000/- (Rupees One thousand only) by the 1st Opposite Party. The offer was made by the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party is released from the liability. Pronounced in open Forum on this the 30th day of August 2008.
