F.A.No.667 OF 2008 AGAINST C.C.No.55 OF 2007 DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM –I, EAST GODAVARI AT KAKINADA

Between

Jakkampudi Venkata Rao
S/o Veerabhadra Rao age 32 years
Proprietor, Jeans Park,
Ramasomayajulu Street, Kakinada
East Godavari Dist

Appellant/complainant

A N D

1.     Sri Sai Automobiles, rep. by its proprietor
        Ramayya Street, Opp.Vijayalakshmi Hospital
        Kakinada 533 001

2.       Birla Power Solutions Ltd.,
          Rep. by its Managing Director
          7-1-414/7/1, Srinivasa Colony
          East Sanjeevreddi Nagar
          Hyderabad                                                                                          Respondent/opposite parties

Counsel for the Appellant             Sri N.V.Anantha Krishna

Counsel for the Respondent No.1   Served
Counsel for the Respondent No.2   Appeal against R2 dismissed.

QUORUM:    SMT M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER

&

SRI SYED ABDULLAH, HON’BLE MEMBER

TUESDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER,

TWO THOUSAND TEN

(Typed to the dictation of Smt Merla Shreesha, Member)
***

        Aggrieved by the order in C.C.No.55 of 2007 on the file of District Forum, Kakinada the complainant filed this appeal.

        The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant is the proprietor of Jeans Park Limited and doing business in readymade garments.  Opposite party no.2 is the company and opposite party no.1 is its dealer.  Opposite party no.1 started a savings scheme for a group of 30 members and EPG 800 EG model digital inverter would be given to all the members of the scheme. As per the scheme each member had to pay `415/- per week for 30 weeks apart from membership fee of `500/- and that a draw would be conducted every Saturday and the winner would be given EPG 800 EG inverter immediately and that the winners of the weeks numbers, 1, 10, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 need not pay other instalments and other members should pay all the instalments.  The complainant joined in the scheme as a member by paying `500/- membership fees on 14.11.2006 and paid the instalments regularly.  In the month of January 2007, opposite party no.1 had given delivery of the digital inverter EG800 to the complainant without informing any draw and asked the complainant to continue the payments.  The complainant enquired from opposite party no.1 the details of which draw he became the successful person and requested him to furnish the said information.  Though opposite party did not furnish any information, the complainant continued the payment of weekly instalments.  On enquiry it was revealed that no draws were conducted at all by opposite party no.1 as canvassed by him.  The complainant had paid 25 instalments and stopped payment of further installments and informed opposite party no.1 that on giving full information only he would pay the rest of the instalments. 

        Opposite party no.1 filed its version admitting the payment of 25 instalments made by the complainant and contended that the complainant committed default in not paying the balance instalments.  At the time of every weekly instalment the complainant was duly informed about the previous auction and the current position of scheme by opposite party no.1.  The complainant used to participate in the draws since his shop is very near to opposite party no.1 premises.  Since he could not get benefit under the drawn no.1, 10, 20 he stopped the payment.  The complainant having taken possession of the digital inverter enjoyed for a considerable period without any complaint but committed default of payment of five instalments. When the complainant was asked to pay the due amount he filed the complaint.  There was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice.  Hence, it prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

        Opposite party no.2 remained exparte.

        Based on the evidence adduced i.e., Exs.A1 to A4 by the complainant the District Forum dismissed the complaint.   

          Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the complainant preferred this appeal.

It is the complainant’s case that he joined the scheme floated by the opposite party attracted by the terms and conditions in Ex.A2 brochure.  This scheme is for a group of 30 members, each member has to pay Rs.415/- per week for 30 weeks apart from the membership fee of Rs.500/- and a draw would be conducted every Saturday and the winner would be EPG 800 EG inverter immediately.   This scheme had an attractive offer that numbers 1, 10, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 winners need not pay the balance instalments.  The complainant joined the scheme on 14-11-2006 and admittedly paid 25 instalments.  While so in the month of January, 2007, opposite party No.1 delivered a digital inverter EG 800 to the complainant without informing him any details of the draw.    It is the complainant’s case that the opposite party indulged in unfair trade practice by not furnishing the details of the draws of the said scheme.

          It is the case of the respondent/opposite party that the complainant paid only 25 instalments and since he could not get the benefit under draw No.s 1,10, 20, he stopped the payment of balance instalments and has taken possession of the inverter and it is only to avoid payment of the balance instalments that the complainant filed this complaint. 

          The complainant did not file proof of publication for R2/opposite party No.2 herein and this Commission by order dated 10/6/2009 dismissed the appeal against R2.  We observe from the record i.e. Ex.A2, which is the brochure issued by the opposite party that the person who wins in the draws 1,10, 20, 25, 26, 28, 29 and 30 need not pay the balance instalments and the subscriber who did not win in these draws should pay all these 30 instalments.   It is pertinent to note that clause 16 of the terms and conditions clearly states that the details of the draw winner will be notified by post to all the other members.   In the instant case the opposite party did not file the details of the winners in the said scheme and has not clearly adhered to clause 16 of the scheme.   When the complainant has paid 25 out of 30 instalments, he ought to have been informed about the details of the draw winners and the balance instalments to be paid by him.   There is no evidence on record that the opposite party has indeed conducted the draws since it had failed to furnish the dates on which the draws were conducted and also the details of the winners, keeping this in view we feel it a fit case to direct the opposite party not to collect the balance instalments from the appellant/complainant.  Not adhering to clause 16 is an act of deficiency in service by the respondent/opposite party for which the appellant is entitled to compensation of Rs.1,000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/-. 

          In the result this appeal is allowed and the order of the District Forum is set aside and consequently the complaint is allowed directing opposite party No.1 not to collect the balance instalments and to pay to the complainant compensation of Rs.1000/- and costs of Rs.1,000/- within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order.  Case against R2/opposite party No.2 is dismissed.

                                                                                                                                       Sd/-MEMBER.

                                                                                                                                      Sd/-MEMBER.

JM/kmk                                                                                                                          Dt.28-9-2010