Sri. P. Satheesh Chandran Nair (President):

                   The complainant filed this petition u/s.12 of the C.P. Act 1986 for getting reliefs from the opposite parties.

                   2. The case of the complainant is as follows:  On 29.09.2012 the complainant in this case joined in a gold saving scheme with opposite party.  He joined the scheme on the basis of the advertisement seen in Malayalam and English News dailies in Kerala.  The employees of opposite party company made to believe the complainant and his wife with regard to the gold purchase scheme and its security and high profit.  Believing the words of opposite party, the complainant joined a scheme with a duration of 36 months commencing from 29.09.2012 with a monthly subscription of Rs.10,000/-.  It is contended that at the time of completion of the said scheme the subscriber of the scheme is at liberty to purchase gold ornament on the basis of the remittance amount.  The price of the ornaments can be calculated in accordance with the price of that particular day.  According to the complainant, he has remitted altogether Rs.3,60,000/- in 36 instalment up to August 2015.  It is further contended that the opposite party insisted to receive gold ornaments instead of gold coin at the time of the completion of the said scheme.  The complainant demanded for gold coins from the opposite party, therefore 17 sovereigns of gold coins were received by the complainant.  According to the complainant, the price of that 17 sovereigns on that particular day was only comes Rs.3,37,280/-.  It is further stated that the opposite party also received an amount of Rs.16,846/- as the making charge of the gold coin.  According to the complainant, there is no justification for receiving making charge for gold coins.  It is further contended that as per the terms and conditions of the above said scheme complainant is eligible to get the bonus from the opposite party and making charge for one gold coin can be calculated only up to Rs.200/-.  It is stated that if the complainant deposited this much of amount in banking institution he would have get an amount of Rs.4,12,720/- from that institution including its interest.  According to the complainant, the opposite party being a reputed gold jewellery in Kerala the non fulfilment of the terms and condition of the said scheme comes under deficiency in service as defined in C.P. Act, 1986.  On 15.04.2016, the complainant sent a legal notice to opposite party to redress the grievances stated above but the opposite party failed to redress any of the grievances of the complainant. Hence this complaint for realising the excess amount received by the opposite party against the terms and condition of the said scheme, 16% bonus, compensation, cost, etc. etc.

                   3. This Forum entertained this complaint and issued notice to the opposite party for their appearance.

                   4. The opposite party appeared and filed their version as follows:  According to the opposite party, the case is not sustainable either in law or on facts.  It is admitted that the complainant joined a ‘Bhima Savings Scheme’ on 29.09.2012 with this opposite party.  As per the terms and conditions of the said scheme, the subscriber can purchase 22 carat of gold which is available on the date of payment of instalments.  The customer is only entitled to get gold ornaments.  It is again contended that the passbook for this purpose shows that the weight of gold being credited to the complainant’s passbook on each of the date of payment of the instalment.  According to the opposite party, 133.951 gms. of 22 carat gold stood to the credit of the complainant at the time of completion of the scheme.  It is further contended that though the complainant was not eligible for bonus, as a goodwill gesture the opposite party allowed 5% bonus to the complainant.  As per the scheme, the complainant is only eligible to purchase gold ornaments worth Rs.3,44,812/- on 08.05.2015 (it is mistakenly printed in the version as Rs.3,448,812/-).  It is further contended that at the time of closure of the scheme the market rate being less than the amount accumulated was purely beyond the control of the opposite party.  The opposite party permitted the complainant to purchase gold coin considering the complainant’s demand for it.  The sale of the said coin was effected on 5% margin and required weight was given to the complainant.  According to the opposite party, the opposite party acted purely as per the terms and condition of the scheme and he has not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service against the complainant.  Therefore, the opposite party prayed to dismiss this complaint with cost.

                   5. This Forum peruse the complaint, version and records before us and framed the following issues:

1. Whether the complaint is maintainable before this Forum?
2. Whether the opposite parties committed any deficiency in service against the complainant?
3. Regarding the relief and costs?

                   6.  In order to prove the case of the complainant, complainant’s brother one Manoj. P he who filed a proof affidavit in lieu of chief examination and examined as PW1.  Ext.A1 to A8 series are also marked. The complainant’s brother produced an authorisation from the complainant and the said authorisation is marked as Ext.A1 in this case.  Ext.A2 (subject to proof) is the paper publication (in English).  Ext.A3 series (3 in number) are the brochures.  Ext.A4 is the copy of customer order ledger dated 08.10.2015.  Ext.A5 is the invoice dated 08.10.2015 for Rs.3,59,456.09.  Ext.A6 is the demand notice dated 15.04.2016.  Ext.A7 is the courier receipt dated 15.04.2016 (2 in number).  Ext.A8 series (4 in number) are the receipts issued by the opposite party to the complainant. On the other side, the Manager of the opposite party he who filed a proof affidavit and he is examined as DW1in this case.  Ext.B1 to B4 were also marked in favour of the opposite party through DW1.  Ext.B1 is the Membership application form.  Ext.B2 is the authorisation letter dated 20.12.2016.  Ext.B3 is the Original Passbook.  Ext.B4 is the copy of invoice dated 08.10.2015 issued by the opposite party to the complainant.  After the closure of evidence, we heard both the learned counsel appearing for both sides in this case.   

                   7. Point No.1:- In this case the opposite party contended that this case is not sustainable either in law or on fact.  When we evaluate the evidence in this case, it can be seen that the complainant herein joined a gold scheme with the opposite party.  The opposite party admitted that they are conducting a gold scheme and the complainant is a customer of that gold scheme.  It is also come out in evidence to see that the complainant paid an amount of Rs.36,000/- by 36 instalments to the opposite party for purchasing gold.  It is clearly reveals that the complainant is a consumer of the opposite party and the opposite party is a service provider of the complainant.  Hence Point No.1 found accordingly.

                   8. Point Nos.2 & 3:-  For the sake of convenience, we would like to consider Point No.2 and 3 together.  When we examine the evidence adduced by the complainant as well as the opposite party as discussed earlier, the opposite party admitted that the complainant has joined for a gold scheme with the opposite party.  If so, we have to know that in which scheme the complainant is joined and what are the terms and conditions of the scheme.  The opposite party specifically pleaded that the complainant joined in a ‘Bhima Saving Scheme’ on 29.09.2012 with them.  In order to substantiate their pleading the opposite party is relying Ext.B1 document.  But on the other hand as per Ext.A3 series, which are 4 in numbers shows that the name of the scheme is ‘Bhima Gold Tree – 015’, all these receipts are seen issued in favour of the complainant.  Ext.A2 (subject to proof) is the cutting of an advertisement published in an English Daily.  We do admit that the Ext.A2 document is marked as subject to proof.  The existence of that advertisement has not been denied by the opposite party.  In that advertisement it is stated, “Book gold in advance before gold price increase again”.  At the times of increasing gold price, make use of ‘Bhima advance booking scheme’ etc”.  Though Ext.A2 has no evidentiary value in this case we can refer this advertisement as one of the reasons for the complainant to join this scheme as a profitable investment.  Ext.A3 series are the brochures of this gold tree gold purchase plan.  In Ext.A3 series No.1 the terms and conditions of the gold tree gold purchase plan are clearly explained.  The conditions are as follows:- 

1. ഈ പദ്ധതിയിൽ അംഗമാകുന്നതിനു മുമ്പ് നിബന്ധനകള് നിർബന്ധമായി വായിച്ചിരിക്കേണ്ടതാണ്.
2. പദ്ധതിയിൽ നിയമാനുസൃതമായ നികുതികള് ബാധകമായിരിക്കും
3. ചെക്ക് മുഖാന്തിരം നിക്ഷേപം നടത്തുമ്പോള് ചെക്ക് ക്ളിയറാകുന്ന തീയതിയിലെ റേറ്റ് അനുസരിച്ചായിരിക്കും നിങ്ങള് വാങ്ങുന്ന സ്വർണ്ണത്തിൻറെ വില നിശ്ചയിക്കുന്നത്
4. ഏതെങ്കിലും സമയത്ത് ആവശ്യമായി വരുകയാണെങ്കിൽ മുകളിൽ പറഞ്ഞ മുഴുവൻ നിബന്ധനകള് പൂർണ്ണമായി പാലിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് പദ്ധതിയിൽ മാറ്റം വരുത്താനോ പിൻവലിക്കാനോ ഉള്ള പൂർണ്ണാധികാരം മാനേജ്മെൻറിൽ നിക്ഷിപ്തമായിരിക്കും.
5. ഈ പദ്ധതികളുമായി എന്തെങ്കിലും തർക്കങ്ങള് വരികയാണെങ്കിൽ അവ കോഴിക്കോട് ജുഡീഷ്യറിയുടെ പരിധിയിൽ വരുന്നതാണ്

           9. Ext.A3 series No.2 is a brochure published by the opposite party in respect of the Gold Purchase Plan of Bhima Gold Tree.  In that brochure that of contains certain importance of the scheme such as,

ഭീമ ഗോള്ഡ് ട്രീയുടെ സവിശേഷതകള്

1. ഇൻഡ്യയിലെ എല്ലാ ഫെഡറൽ ബാങ്ക് ശാഖകള് മുഖേനയും ഭീമ ഗോള്ഡ് ട്രീയുടെ പ്രതിമാസ തവണകള് യാതൊരു ചെലവുമില്ലാതെ അടയ്ക്കാവുന്നതാണ്.
2. മാസതവണയുടെ ഗുണിതങ്ങളായി എത്ര തുക വേണമെങ്കിലും അടയ്ക്കാവുന്നതാണ്.
3. കാലാവധിക്കുശേഷം മുഴുവൻ തുകയ്ക്കുള്ള സ്വർണ്ണാഭരണങ്ങള്ക്കൊപ്പം ആകർഷകമായ ബോണസും ലഭിക്കുന്നു.
4. നിങ്ങളുടെ പണത്തിന് കൂടുതൽ സുരക്ഷിതത്വം   

          10. Ext.A3 series No.3 is the English translation Ext.A3 series No.2.  When we examined Ext.A3 series 1 and Ext.A3 series 2, it is clear that the customers of gold tree are eligible for annual bonus and in the 2^nd condition it is stated that, “ഈ പദ്ധതിയിലൂടെ സ്വർണ്ണാഭരണങ്ങള് മാത്രം ലഭിക്കുന്നു”.  The opposite party also admitted that as a result of the pressure from the complainant the opposite party decided to issue gold coin to the complainant instead of gold ornaments.  When we appreciating the evidence adduced by both sides in this case, there is no dispute with regard to the weight of the gold which was eligible to the complainant at the time of the closure of the scheme.  The complainant disputed that he was denied bonus at the time of the closure of the scheme.  The complainant disputed that he was denied bonus at the time of the closure of the scheme.  At the same time, it is to see that though the complainant is eligible to get gold ornaments as a result of the pressure from the complainant the opposite party issued gold coins to them as a sign of goodwill and gesture of opposite party.  The complainant’s another main dispute is that the opposite party received value additional rate of 5% from the gold coin.  The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party argued that the gold ornaments as well as the gold coins are always charged its making expenditure and the same is calculated as value addition in this case also.  In cross-examination of PW1, he answered to a question, “എൻറെ brother ചേർന്നത് Bhima Swarna Lekshmi എന്നാണ് എന്നത് ശരിയല്ല. ഞങ്ങള് ചേർന്നത് Gold Tree എന്ന schemeൽ ആണ്”.  In another question he answered, “5% margin opposite party ഈടാക്കി പലിശ നൽകാം എന്ന് opposite party വാഗ്ദാനം ചെയ്തിട്ടില്ല”.  In respect of the above answers of PW1 and Ext.A3 series we can infere that the complainant availed ‘Bhima Gold Deposit Scheme of Gold Tree’ and that scheme provide 5% bonus to its customers.  When DW1 is cross-examined he answered, “2012-2013 കാലയളവിൽ Ext.A3 പ്രകാരം Bhima gold tree എന്ന scheme ഉണ്ടായിരുന്നു എന്നത് ശരിയല്ല.  Ext.A3 യിൽ 2012 എന്ന് കാണുന്നു.  2013 അവസാനം ആണ് ടി scheme  തുടങ്ങിയത്”.  He answered in another question, “Ext.B1- ൽ last clause- ൽ ‘Enrolment for Bhima Gold Tree Scheme open for all working days’ എന്നുണ്ട്..   ടി Ext.B1 പ്രകാരം ഈ  ‘Gold Tree Scheme’  2012 മുതൽ ഉണ്ട് എന്ന് കാണാം”. Witness adds, “അടൂരിൽ 2011- ൽ open   ചെയ്ത സമയം papers available ആയിരുന്നില്ല. ആയതുകൊണ്ട് ടി Ext.B1 ഞങ്ങളുടെ തിരുവനന്തപുരം show room ൽ നിന്ന് എടുത്തതാണ്.  Ext.B1 ൽ Bhima, Central Junction, Adoor എന്ന് കാണുന്നുണ്ട്v.     Ext.A3 series ൽ പറയുന്ന പ്രകാരം ഈ scheme(gold tree)  ചേരുന്ന ആള്ക്ക് 16% Bonus നൽകും എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞിട്ടുണ്ട്.”.

          11. In the light of the above deposition, it is so clear that the complainant joined a gold deposit scheme known as gold tree with the opposite party and as per the terms and conditions of the said scheme there is a bonus of 16% is allowable to the complainant.  Though DW1 tried to evade actual commencement of the gold tree scheme, that explanation is not even believe for a movement.  The remaining point to be considered is whether the opposite party is justifiable to add 5% making charge to this gold coin is allowable or not?  In cross of DW1 answered, “Gold coin ആണ് വാദി വാങ്ങിയത് Value addition എന്നത് പണിക്കുറവും പണിക്കൂലിയും ചേർന്നതാണ്.  Gold coinþന് 5% V.A ഈടാക്കിയത് കേരളത്തിൽ എവിടേയും ഇല്ല എന്നത് ശരിയല്ല”.  In order to come to the conclusion with regard to the making charge either the complainant nor the opposite party filed any document or other evidence to rely their contention.  If so, with regard to the making charge we are not in a position to take any definite conclusion in this case.  The person who sold that article has got right to impose making charge to it but that has to be come within a reasonable limit.  We do admit that in order to prove the contention of the opposite party Ext.B1 to B4 documents were marked.  Ext.B1 is an application form of ‘Bhima Savings Scheme’.  When we peruse Ext.B1, it is true that there is no whisper with regard to this types of gold scheme which the complainant joined with opposite party.  Ext.B2 is an authorisation letter issued in favour of DW1 for the conduct of this case.  We do admit that Ext.B3 passbook is a document which the opposite party highly relied.  It is pertinent to see that the last but one Page of this passbook a white paper is affixed and it is endorsed ‘closed 08.10.2015’ and 2 initials are also seen.  Anywhere in this Ext.B3, the signature of the complainant could not been seen.  Hence we are not in a position to rely the said document in favour of the opposite party.  Ext.B4 is the receipt issued by the opposite party in favour of the complainant on 08.10.2015 in respect of the gold coins.  As per this Ext.B4 document, it is clear that opposite party sold 136 gm. of gold coin for an amount of Rs.3,59,451/- to the complainant and an amount of Rs.5,312.09 is charged as vat amount.  In the light of the above discussion, we find that the complainant in this case joined ‘Bhima Gold Deposit Scheme of Gold Tree’ and the complainant is eligible to get a bonus of 16% from the opposite party with regard to the scheme.  It is also find that the opposite party failed to perform the terms and conditions, which is elaborately stated in Ext.A3 series.  Therefore, we find that the complaint is allowable and Point No.2 and 3 found in favour of the complainant. 

                   12. In the result, we pass the following orders:

1. The opposite party is directed to pay a bonus of 16% to the complainant for the said scheme with 10% interest from the date of filing of the case onwards subject to a reduction of 5% bonus which was already paid.  (The bonus to be paid Rs.61,272/-).
2. The opposite party is also directed to pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) and a cost of Rs.3,000/- (Rupees Three Thousand only) to the complainant with 10% interest from the date of receipt of this order onwards.

3.  No order on making charge.
4. Calculation Table is also attached.

        Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30^th day of January, 2017.

                                                                                    (Sd/-)

                                                                   P. Satheesh Chandran Nair,

                                                                                            (President)

Smt. Sheela Jacob (Member)                :   (Sd/-)

Appendix:

Witness examined on the side of the complainant:

PW1  : Manoj. P

Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:

A1  :  Authorisation letter dated 06.05.2016

A2  :  Paper publication (in English). 

A3 series (3 in number) : Brochures. 

A4 :  Copy of customer order ledger dated 08.10.2015. 

A5 :  Invoice dated 08.10.2015 for Rs.3,59,456.09. 

A6 :  Demand notice dated 15.04.2016. 

A7 :  Courier receipt dated 15.04.2016 (2 in number). 

A8 series (4 in number) :  Receipts issued by the opposite party to the  

                                        complainant.

Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties:

DW1  : Sreeraj. C

Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties:

B1 :  Membership application form. 

B2 :  Authorisation letter dated 20.12.2016. 

B3 :  Original Passbook. 

B4 :  Copy of invoice dated 08.10.2015 issued by the opposite party

        to the complainant.

                                                                                            (By Order)

Copy to:- (1) Manoj. P, Thiruvathira, Omalloor.P.O.,

                    Pathanamthitta Dist., Pin – 689 647.

               (2)  The Managing Director, M/s. Bhima Gold & Diamonds,

                    Central Junction, Adoor.

               (3)  The Stock File.