BEFORE THE DISTRICT FORUM:KURNOOL
Present: Sri.K.V.H. Prasad, B.A., LL.B President
And
Smt. C.Preethi, M.A.LL.B., Lady Member
Tuesday the 2nd day of December, 2008
C.C.No. 103/07
Between:
Suresh, S/o. A. Eswaraiah, Lecturer in Mathematics, AAS College,
D.No.1-677/26B, Raghavendra Colony, Adoni, Kurnool District.
… Complainant
Versus
M/s. Samsung Electronics India Private Limited,
CIT Division, IFCI Tower, 61, Nehru Palace, New Delhi.
… Opposite party
This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri. D. Sreenivasulu, , Advocate, for the complainant, and Sri. M.D.V.Jogaiah Sarma, Advocate, for the opposite party and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.
ORDER
(As per Smt. C.Preethi, Lady Member)
C.C.No.103/07
1. This consumer complaint of the complainant is filed U/S 12 of C.P.Act,1986 seeking direction on opposite party to give printer SAM ML -1610 Model and Rs.999/- collected from the complainant with 24% interest p.a., Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony , Rs.5,000/- towards cost, and any other relief or reliefs which the complainant is entitled in the circumstances of the case.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case is that the opposite party with vide publicity announced an offer that any consumer purchasing the Sync Master 740 N TFT LCD gets a SAM ML- 1610 printer worth Rs.8,490/- free with the purchase and the offer was valid between February 15 to March 31,2006. Lured by the opposite parties publicity the complainant purchased a 17” LCD Monitor Model 740 N for Rs. 15,000/- from M/s. Srinivasan Electronics, Adoni on 13-03-2006. As per the said offer the complainant is eligible to get SAM ML 1610 Printer from opposite party. On protest the complainant paid Rs.999/- by way of D.D.No.087160 drawn in favour of opposite party and send the same to opposite party through courier. The opposite party received the said D.D. but failed to send the printer to complainant as promised in the advertisement. The complainant, thereafter contacted the opposite party through phone and there was no response and the complainant approached Consumer Welfare Society and the said Society sent notices dated 23-01-2007 and 28-02-2007 and even to the said letters there was no response from the opposite party. The above attitude of the opposite party constrained the complainant to approach the forum for reliefs.
3. In support of his case the complainant relied on the following documents viz., (1) Xerox copy of relevant portion of press release at page No.2., (2) Invoice of complainant dated 13-03-2006 for Rs.15,000/- ,(3) Invoice of dealer dated 10-03-2006 and (4) Xerox copy of DD bearing No.087160 for Rs. 999/- dated 15-03-2006, besides to the sworn affidavit of the complainant in reiteration of his complaint averments and the above documents are marked as Ex.A1 to A4 for its appreciation in this case and replies to the interrogatories exchanged .
4. In pursuance to the notice of this forum as to this case of the complainant the opposite party appeared through their standing counsel and contested the case by filling written version.
5. The written version of opposite party denies the complaint as not maintainable either in law or on facts but admits that according to the Samsung Awesome Twosome Scheme under which the complainant purchased the LCD Monitor is eligible for a free gift of Samsung ML 1610 Printer and the said eligibility is such to payment of Rs.999/- by the purchaser to the opposite party and the opposite party further submits that the demand draft said to be sent to opposite party together with all required information might have been sent to a wrong address as such the complainant is not eligible for gift under the scheme. The said demand draft was not received by the opposite party and hence the complainant is not eligible for free gift under the Awesome Twosome scheme and nothing is on file to prove that the opposite party receiving the complainants application with demand draft. Hence, there was no deficiency of service on part of opposite party and seeks for the dismissal of complaint with cost.
6. In support of their case the opposite party did not filed any documents but relied on the sworn affidavit of opposite party in reiteration of his written version averments and replies to the interrogatories exchanged.
7. Hence, the point for consideration is to what relief the complainant is entitled alleging deficiency of service on part of opposite parties .
8. It is the simple case of the complainant that he purchased a 17” LCD Monitor, Model 740 N, for Rs.15,000/- from M/s. Srinivasan Electronics, Adoni, vide Ex.A2 . As per Ex.A1 the said purchase is eligible for a free gift of Samsung ML – 1610 Printer, on condition of payment of Rs.999/- . The complainant submits that he paid Rs.999/- to opposite party vide Ex.A4 – Xerox copy of demand draft for Rs.999/- , even after receipt of said demand draft by the opposite party , the opposite party did not release the free gift to the complainant. The opposite party on the other hand admits that the complainant purchased the LCD Monitor and he is eligible for free gift of Samsung ML – 1610 Printer, on condition of payment of Rs.999/- by the complainant to opposite party, it also further submitted by the opposite party that the demand draft said to be send by the complainant was not received by the opposite party, as such the complainant is not eligible for the free gift under the scheme.
9. The complainant submits has was send the said demand draft to opposite party and it was received by opposite party but the opposite party submits they have not received the said demand draft. The onus is on the complainant to prove that he has send the said demand draft to the opposite party . There is nothing on record to show that the demand draft was received by opposite party, no material is placed either as to the proper sending of the demand draft to the opposite party nor any cogent relevant material is filed by the complainant as to the encashment of said demand draft by the addressee of the demand draft . Hence, it cannot be said that the opposite party has received the said demand draft. When the opposite party did not receive the demand draft for Rs.999/-, the complainant is not remaining eligible for the gift under the scheme.
10. To sum up, the complainant utterly failed to prove his case and the complainant is not remaining entitled to any of the reliefs and the complaint is dismissed for want of merit and force.
- In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 2nd day of December , 2008.
Sd/- sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant :Nil For the opposite parties :Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1. Xerox copy of relevant portion of press release at page
No.2.
Ex.A2. Invoice of complainant dated 13-03-2006 for Rs.15,000/-.
Ex.A3. Invoice of the dealer dated 10-03-2006.
Ex.A4. Xerox copy of DD bearing No.087160 for Rs. 999/- dated
15-03-2006 along with courier receipt and acknowledgement.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties: Nil
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER PRESIDENT
// 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 :
