Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/9/2019

K.Kesavulu Chetty, aged 71 years, S/o. Late K.Chengaiah Chetty - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s MGR Mall, rep. by its Proprietor - Opp.Party(s)

National Association of Consumers (NAC)

20 Sep 2019

ORDER

         

 

                                                                                                                                                             Filing Date: 10-12-2018                                                                                                                                                                                       Order Date:  20-09-2019

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II, CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present:-  Sri. T.Anand, President (FAC)

                                                                                              Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

FRIDAY THE TWENTIETH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, TWO THOUSAND AND NINETEEN

 

C.C.No.09/2019

Between

Sri. Katari Kesavulu Chetty, S/o. Late Katari Chengaiah Chetty,

Aged about 71 Years, Residing at # 18-1-61, K.T.Road,

TIRUPATI – 517507.                                                                    … Complainant

 

And

M/s. MGR Mall,

Represented by its Proprietor,

T.K.Street,

TIRUPATI – 517501.                                                                   … Opposite party

 

        This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 04.09.2019 and upon perusing the complaint and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of  president, National Association of Consumers (NAC) for the complainant and Sri. G.Guruprasad, counsel for the opposite party having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SRI. T.ANAND, PRESIDENT(FAC)

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

           1. This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, facts in brief are as follows:- On purchasing of dresses/cloth items from opposite party for consideration of Rs.1000/- vide cash bill No.44014 dt: 05.11.2018,  the opposite party issued lucky coupon bearing No.0004840 on the same day. Lucky draw scheme was announced by the opposite party from 12.10.2018 to 17.10.2018 and 01.11.2018 to 06.11.2018 at Tirupati stating that a gold necklace will be presented to the winner of the lucky draw every day and also the Pattu Saree lucky draw will be conducted per every one hour and Pattur Saree will be presented to the lucky draw winner every day per hour during this lucky draw scheme period. The opposite party has given vide publicity to the lucky draw scheme by displaying boards in and around the city and by giving advertisements in all leading Telugu daily newspapers during the lucky draw scheme period.  The draw was not conducted daily. The lucky draw rules are framed against the interest of customers. The Pattu Saree value was not mentioned in the lucky draw scheme advertisements and in the lucky coupons also. The complainant stated that, Section 2(1) (r) (3A) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 says “ Withholding from the participants of any scheme offering gifts, prizes or other items free of charge, on its closure the information about final results of the Scheme. No results were published in any leading Telugu daily newspapers during the lucky scheme period where the original advertisements were published by the opposite party. It clearly proves that no lucky draw was conducted every day as stated by the opposite party in their advertisements. As per Consumer Protection Act, 1986, fraud and cheating with public amounts to Unfair Trade Practice”.  

        As the opposite party cheated the consumers by not conducting lucky draws as announced by them, the complainant missed the opportunity of getting a winning chance in the lucky draw. He sent legal notice dt: 16.11.2018 to opposite party by registered post with acknowledgment due vide postal receipt No.RN593365455IN dt: 19.11.2018 for which the opposite party sent irresponsible reply. Hence it is direct the opposite party may be directed to refund Rs.1000/- collected from complainant towards cost of dresses on 05.11.2018 on pretext of lucky draw scheme with interest @ 24% p.a. from 05.11.2018 and also to pay Rs.4,90,000/- towards compensation for causing mental torture to the complainant  due to deficiency in service on the part of opposite party and also to pay Rs.8,000/- towards litigation expenses.

        2. The opposite party filed written version contending as follows:- At the outset, the complaint averments are denied. The complainant is called upon to prove that he purchased dresses from opposite party mall for Rs.1000/- vide cash bill No.44014 dt: 05.11.2018 and that the opposite party issued one lucky coupon bearing No. 0004840 per coupon. However the opposite party admitted that lucky draw scheme was announced by opposite party from 12.10.2018 to 17.10.2018 and 01.11.2018 to 06.11.2018 at Tirupati stating that a Gold Necklace will be presented to the winner of the lucky draw for every one hour and also Pattu Saree lucky draw will be conducted for every one hour and Pattu Saree will be presented to the lucky draw winner every day per hour during the lucky draw scheme. It is denied that the opposite party has given vide publicity by displaying boards in and around the city and also given advertisements of Telugu daily newspapers regularly during the lucky draw scheme period. But the allegation in Para 4 of the complaint that the draw was not conducted daily. It is denied that lucky draw rules are framed in such a way which are detrimental to the consumer’s interest. It is denied that the Pattu Saree price was not mentioned in the lucky draw scheme advertisements and  no results were published in any leading Telugu Daily Newspapers during this lucky draw period where the original advertisements were published by the opposite party and that clearly proves no lucky draw was conducted every day as stated by the opposite party in their advertisements. It is denied that the opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice. It is denied that the complainant missed opportunity of getting winning chance in the lucky draw as the opposite party cheated the consumers. It is denied that notice was issued by the complainant to the opposite party and the opposite party also issued a suitable reply to the complainant.

        3. It is submitted that the draw was conducted daily as mentioned in the coupon issued by the opposite party mall. On 05.11.2018 the draw was conducted and the winner is Y. Purushotham Reddy, Cell No. 8006473753, M.R.Palli, Tirupati and he received the said Necklace. The opposite party further submits that the value of the Pattu Saree was displayed before the show room Rs.1000/- and every winner name are displayed before the shop as mentioned in the coupons given by the MGR Mall. Hence the complainant is not entitled for refund of the cost of the purchased items and also not liable to pay any compensation much less Rs.4,90,000/-. The complainant is well aware that, he is not the winner of the any draw. However in order to gain wrongfully this complaint is filed on false allegations.

        4. It is alleged that, the authorized person Sri.N.C.S.M. Prasad is running Prajaratham monthly magazine and Katari Kesavulu Chetty who is complainant in this case is an Executive Chief Editor for that magazine, M.Prathap Kumar (complainant in CC.No.03/2019) is a Reporter in the said magazine. The authorized person in the complaint Sri.N.C.S.M.Prasad also filed complaint against opposite party before consumer forum in CC.No.06/2018 and the said complaint was withdrawn by the complainant. The complainant demanded opposite party Rs.10,00,000/-  before filing the complaint, but the opposite party refused to pay the amount to Sri.N.C.S.M.Prasad. The complainant had withdrawn CC.No.06/2018 filed by him. After that he demanded Rs.10,000/- from the opposite party for publishing MGR Mall advertisement in their magazine Prajaratham and that opposite party paid Rs.10,000/-  to this authorized person and he issued receipt for Rs.10,000/- and  the advertisement was publish in Prajaratham magazine in August, 2018. Further the authorized person demanded the opposite party to publish advertisements of MGR Mall in their magazine at the rate of Rs.1,00,000/- but the opposite party refused his demand. The complainant gathered bills and coupons from customers after completion of draw and filed frivolous complaint before the Forum. There is no cause of action against opposite party to file the present complaint. Hence it is prayed to dismiss the complaint.

        5.  The complainant filed chief evidence affidavit and marked Ex:A1 to A5. On the other hand the opposite party filed chief evidence affidavit by Manager of opposite party Sri.M.Veerabhadra Rao and Ex:B1 and B2 were marked. The written arguments filed by both sides.

      6.The point for consideration is:-

         Whether there is deficiency of service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party? If so, to what extent, the complainant is entitled for the reliefs sought?

                     7.Point:-  Ex:B1 is filed in order to show that the complainant purchased clothes items worth Rs.1000/- from opposite party in order to become eligible to participate in the lucky draw scheme. Ex:A2 is lucky draw coupon showing the terms and conditions. As per Ex:A2 the offer starts from 12.10.2018 and ends on 17.10.2018 and from 01.11.2018 and ends on 06.11.2018. One Pattu Saree per hour and one 916 KDM 10grms Gold Necklace per day will be giving to winners of the each lucky draw. The winner shall hand over the coupon to take the prize. Without coupon the prizes will not be given and 30 days time limit is fixed to take the prize. The coupons are not transferable and no cash will be paid in lieu of prize and the winners name will be displayed in the shop of opposite party. Ex:A3 is notice issued by the complainant for which Ex:A4 reply was given on 03.12.2018 by the opposite party counsel denying the averments in the legal notice. Ex:A5 is Eenadu paper advertisement pertaining to the lucky draw scheme.

                     The opposite party relied upon Ex:B1 which is photo showing the winner receiving the gold coin and Ex:B2 which is TDS Form No.16A showing TDS deduction from the cost of Gold Necklace. The complainant placed reliance on decision passed in FA/12/352 one CONNAUGHT PLAZA RESTAURANT Vs. V.KAPIL MITRA in support of his contention that the opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice by not following Section 2(1) (r) (3A) of Consumer Protection Act.

                      8. On the other hand, the opposite party counsel argued that, opposite party conducted lucky draw and Gold Necklace was presented to the winner as per Ex:B1.We have perused the 35 photos filed under Ex:B1.The photos show that the winners were presented as per the lucky draw scheme. Hence it cannot be said that there is no transparency in conducting the lucky draw programme as per terms and conditions mentioned in lucky draw coupon.

                     There is no dispute about the provision of law under Consumer Protection Act, the provision is mainly intended to maintain transparency in conducting lucky draw scheme by the business people. In the instant case on the documentary evidence placed before us, we are convinced that the opposite party maintained transparency in conducting the lucky draw scheme. It is for the complainant to show that in what way he is prejudiced and his chances lost to participate in the lucky draw scheme was left. Hence, we are of the view that the complaint is liable to be dismissed as there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party.

        9. In the result, complaint is dismissed. No Costs.

         Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 20^th day of September, 2019.

        Sd/-                                                                                                                           Sd/-

 Lady Member                                                                                                          President (FAC)

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant/s.

PW-1: Sri Katari Kesavulu Chetty (Chief affidavit filed).

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite PartY/S.

RW-1: Sri M. Veerabhadra Rao(Chief affidavit filed).

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT/s

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Original copy of Cash Bill of MGR Mall, T.K. Street, Tirupati. Dt: 05.11.2018.
	Original copy of LUCKY DRAW COUPON (bearing Coupon No. 00004840).
	Notice sent to the Opposite Party. Dt: 16.11.2018.
	Reply sent by the Opposite Party. Dt: 03.12.2018.
	Original copy of Advertisement published in EENADU Chittoor Edition News Paper. Dt: 04.11.2018.

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY/s

Exhibits (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
	Photo with CD relating to draw PATTU SAREES & NECKLES Winners. Dt: 05.11.2018.
	Photo copy of the TDs (FORM No.16A) relating to the winner in draw.

                                                                                                                                                          Sd/-

                                                                                                                                                 President (FAC)

                                                                                                // TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

            Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

Copies to:  1) The Complainant,

                  2) The Opposite party.