Hariprasad filed a consumer case on 31 Jul 2008 against Managing Director in the Thiruvananthapuram Consumer Court. The case no is 228/2006 and the judgment uploaded on 30 Nov -0001.
1. Smt. Beena Kumari. A 2. Smt. S.K.Sreela 3. Sri G. Sivaprasad
Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
OppositeParty/Respondent(s):
ORDER
BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER C.C.No. 228/2006 Dated : 31.07.2008 Complainant: Hariprasad, Pavithram, Thokkadu P.O, Varkala, Thiruvananthapuram. (By adv. J. Sandhya) Opposite parties: 1.Managing Director, Kerala Kaumudi, Kaumudi Buildings, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram. 2.M.S. Mani, Printer, Publisher, Kerala Kaumudi, Kaumudi Buildings, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram. This O.P having been heard on 05.07.2008, the Forum on 31.07.2008 delivered the following: ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER The complainant Mr. Hariprasad is a blind as well as physically handicapped person. The complainant joined the 'Our Kaumudi' plan run by the Kerala Kaumudi newspaper and made 53 other members join the scheme through him. In this, the complainant has also paid the sum of joining for his wife and for 5 other people. As per the promise of opposite parties, depending on the number of members added, an amount will be given to the person who makes them join. But, even though 53 members were made to join by the complainant, opposite parties did not give the promised amount. Also, the photo of the complainant and his wife which was given to the newspaper office, to be published in the daily in the 25th wedding anniversary, was published along with a news without the complainant's permission. Through that news, the opposite parties said the complainant was making huge sums by joining 'our kaumudi' plan. Reading the news, many of those who were joined to the scheme by the complainant approached him and abused him as they were not getting any amount as promised by the opposite parties. In between, the complainant had approached the opposite parties many times, but he didn't get a positive reply or amount from them. Following this, the complainant has already sent a legal notice to the opposite parties, for which no reply was obtained yet. Hence the complainant approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievances. In this case the opposite parties are ex-parte. Points to be considered: (i)Whether there is any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service from the opposite parties? (ii)Whether the complainant is entitled to receive the reliefs sought for? Points (i) & (ii):- In this case the complainant was examined as PW1. 5 documents were produced by him, which is marked as Exts. P1 to P5. Ext. P1 is the 'Kerala Kaumudi' newspaper dated 25th October 2004 which contains the article with the complainant and his wife's photo and saying big profits were made by the complainant through 'nammude kaumudi' plan. Ext. P2 is the copy of advocate notice to the opposite party demanding the promised profit and additional compensation. No response was there from opposite party on that till date. Ext. P3 is the postal receipts of advocate notice. Ext. P4 is the brochure for the 'nammude kaumudi' plan. Ext. P5(a) to (f) are the cash receipts given while joining the 6 members for which the complainant paid. From the perusal of the documents and evidences produced by the complainant, this Forum finds that there was unfair trade practice from the side of opposite party. They did not keep the profit promise given through the advertisement. There is also deficiency in service from the opposite party. Since the complainant suffered hardships for making 53 members to join the plan and also he got abused due to the article came in the daily and also taking into account the fact that the complainant is a blind and physically handicapped, this Forum finds him eligible for compensation. First prayer of the complainant, to refund the amount paid by all the 53 members joined by him cannot be granted, since the complainant does not have the right to ask for that and if needed the members can approach the Forum on their own. Nothing is mentioned about whether the complainant is getting the publication as promised by the opposite party for the specified duration, which is the main purpose of the plan. The complainant failed to give exact amount he was ought to get. For the foregoing reasons, the Forum partly allows the complaint. The opposite party is directed to pay Rs. 12500/- which is the specified amount in the brochure if at least 3 members were made to join by one person, here it is the complainant. The opposite party should also pay Rs. 5000/- as compensation and cost Rs. 1000/-. Time for compliance two months. After that, an interest of 9% per annum should also be paid. 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 day of 31st July 2008. G. SIVAPRASAD, President. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER S.K. SREELA : MEMBER C.C.No. 228/2006 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS: PW1 - K. Hariprasad II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS: P1 - Original daily Kerala Kaumudi dated 25.10.2004. P2 - Copy of advocate notice dated 09.01.2006 to the opposite parties. P3 - Original postal receipt Nos. 819, 820, 821 and 822. P4 -Original brochure showing the conditions of scheme. P5(a) - Original prepaid coupon with receipt No. 70317465 dated 02.07.2003 for Rs. 1600/-. P5(b) - Original prepaid coupon with receipt No. 70317479 dated 02.07.2003 for Rs. 1600/-. P5(c) - Original prepaid coupon with receipt No. 70317540 dated 03.07.2003 for Rs. 1600/-. P5(d) - Original prepaid coupon with receipt No. 70317750 dated 08.07.2003 for Rs. 1600/-. P5(e) - Original prepaid coupon with receipt No. 70317989 dated 14.07.2003 for Rs. 1600/-. P5(f) - Original prepaid coupon with receipt No. 70318237 dated 16.07.2003 for Rs. 1600/-. III OPPOSITE PARTIES' WITNESS: NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTIES' DOCUMENTS: NIL PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A ......................Smt. S.K.Sreela ......................Sri G. Sivaprasad
Consumer Court Lawyer
Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.