Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smt C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Wednesday the 11th day of December, 2002
C.D.No.32/2002
M/s Madhu Agencies,
Proprietor Smt N.Kusuma Kumari,
W/o Srinivasa Kumar,
Shop NO.C-82,
Balaji Complex,
Nandyal.
Kurnool District. ….Complainant
-Vs-
1. M/s Pushpaka Agencies,
Authorised by M.Rama Krishna,
25-26B, Sanjeevanagar gate,
Nandyal,
Kurnool District. …Opposite party represented by his counsel Sri. L.Vishvanadham.
ORDER
As per Sri.K.V.H.Prasad, Honourable President
C.C.No.32/2002
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is filed under section 12 of the C.P. Act seeking a direction on the opposite party for refund to the complainant with interest @ 18% P.A. Rs.8,000/- the amount of installments paid by the complainant to the opposite party after joining Bajaj Motor Cycle Small Savings Bonanza Scheme extending in a tenure of 365 days with 50 members with daily installments rate of Rs.100/- for weekly lucky dip among members for a new model Boxer at Bajaj Motor Cycle worth of Rs.31,100/-. The complaint alleges joining of the complainant as member to the said scheme with subscription No.28 after complying all formalities and requirements and as per condition No.4 of the pamphlet concerning to the said scheme the winner member of the draws held at 1st, 15th, 25th, 45th to 50th weeks shall win the said Motor Cycle and such a member need not pay the installments thereafter and the other members shall pay the installment till the end of the scheme and the winner of the draws held on 31st to 50th weekly draw shall have attractive prized in addition to the said Motor Cycle and the defaulter of the installments for week disentitle his membership for being taken up in the said weekly draw and seized the membership itself if the default is for 3 continuous installments and the amount paid till then will not be refunded and the company shall have right to recover the Motor Cycle provided. It further alleges that a complainant allotted a Bajaj Boxer Motor Cycle in the 5th weekly draw and there has arisen a dispute with the opposite party when the later refused to include the name of the complainant in the other weekly draws also and hence the complainant stopped paying the installments thereafter and complainant’s number was not included in the 15th week draw held on 25.01.2001 and hence the complainant has lost chances of winning prizes of the said weekly draw. The opposite party not replied even the legal notice.
2. The complainant in support of its case relied upon documentary material in pamphlet, collection card subscription No.28, receipts issued by the opposite party for installments received from the complainant, legal notice dated 01.12.2001 and the acknowledgement of the notice by the opposite party (not filed) and they are marked as Ex.A1 toEx.A11 for the purpose of their appreciation in this case.
3. The opposite party inspite of receipt of the notice from this Forum as this case, did not choose to file any objection statement inspite of several adjournments on and from 13.03.2002, 12.04.2002, 14.05.2002, 04.05.2002, 26.06.2002, 30.07.2002, 03.10.2002, 13.11.2002 and 02.12.2002.
4. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to reliefs sought for?
5. The complainant when joined the scheme run by the opposite party the terms and conditions of the said scheme mentioned in Ex.A1 binds complainant also. As per the condition No.4 of the Ex.A1 appearing on the back side of the page the exemption of further payment of installments were given to those winners who won the prize in the weekly draws held on 1st, 15th 25th, 35th and 45th to 50th only and the condition No.5 appearing there after directs all other members to pay installments regularly and the condition No.7 and 8 mentioned there after disentitle the member from participating the weekly draw in case of default and closes the membership of the member if the default is for 3 successive installments apart from the non refund of the amount paid till then.
6. As the complaint averments itself says that the complainant was winner in the 5th weekly draw she is not remaining entitle to any exemption for the payment of further installments. The perusal of the Ex.A3 to Ex.A10 which find their correspondence entries in Ex.A2 and envisage the payment of Rs.8,000/- in all towards the installments covering the period from 12.08.2001 to 30.10.2001 i.e., for 11 weekly drawls. As there is no evidence of payment of installments by the complainant subsequent to 30.10.2001 to the opposite party, as per the condition Nos.7 and 8 the member seized to be taken into draw and also his or her membership remain closed on account of her continuous default in payment of installments thereafter. Hence the opposite party need not include the complainant’s name in the weekly draws held thereafter and that being so the complainant cannot demand, while the other parties not obligated to do that too in contravention of expressed conditions of the scheme enumerated in the Ex.A1 and there by the complainant defaultive conduct and demands to include her name in subsequent draws is also not remaining justifiable. When such is so with the complainant i.e., being with defaultive conduct within deference to the terms and conditions of the scheme there appears no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party in performing any of its obligation arising in that scheme and as per the condition stipulated in Rule No.8 the opposite party is remaining further justified in refusing the refund of the amount paid by the complainant till then. As any scheme obligation of the opposite party is proportionate to the said scheme. The defaultive conduct of the complainant is not leaving any service obligation on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant.
7. Therefore, there be no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant, the case of the complainant is lacking proper cause of action even and thereby the complainant, for the deficiency of the proper cause of action cannot stand and thereby the complainant is not remaining entitled to the reliefs sought against the opposite party, especially when left the case unrepresented in the last dates of hearings and their by failing herself in deligent persuasion and prosecution of the proceedings.
8. Consequently the complaint is dismissed with costs.
Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed by him, corrected and pronounced in the open bench on this the 11th day of December, 2002.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
APENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant:Nill For the opposite party:Nill
List of Exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 Is the Xerox copy of the Pamphlet.
Ex.A2 Is the Xerox copy of the Collection Card subscription No.28.
Ex.A3 Is the Xerox copy of Legal Notice issued by the complainant to the opposite party dated 01.12.2001.
Ex.A4 Is the Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 12.08.2001 to 21.08.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,000/-.
Ex.A5 Is the Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party date d 21.08.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,000/-.
Ex.A6 Is the Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 01.09.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,000/-.
Ex.A7 Is the Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 11.09.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,000/-.
Ex.A8 Is the Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 21.09.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,000/-.
Ex.A9 Is the Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 20.10.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,000/-.
Ex.A10 Is the Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 10.10.2001 for a sum of Rs.1,000/-.
Ex.A11 Is the Xerox copy of the receipt issued by the opposite party dated 04.10.2001.
List of Exhibits marked for the opposite party:- Nil
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER
//Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
