D.O.F. 02.09.2012

                                            D.O.O. 15.01.2014

IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR

Present:      Sri. K.Gopalan                  :                President

                   Smt. Sona Jayaraman K.  :               Member

                   Sri. Babu Sebastian         :               Member

Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2014.

C.C.No.102 /2012

Meera B.

D/o. P. Bhaskaran                                               :         Complainant

‘Sreeshankara Jyothi’

P.O. Edakkad

Kannur

(Rep. by Adv. A.T. Prajil)

1.Liwa Wedding Centre

   Liwa Arcade

   Gopal Street,  

   Kannur

2. Muhammad Iqbal                                             :         Opposite Parties

    Managing partner     

    Liwa Wedding Centre

    Liwa Arcade

    Gopal Street, Kannur

(Rep. by Adv. M. Kishore Kumar)

O R D E R

Sri. K. Gopalan, President

          This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection

 Act for an order directing the opposite parties to given 5 sovereigns or its existing market value together with compensation and cost.

The case of the complainant in brief is as follows :  During the Onam-Ramsan festival season  2010 opposite party made wider publicity in order to attract the public at large offering prize coupon of 5 sovereigns.  Attracted by the advertisement complainant purchased a churidar for `820 after discount and filled up prize coupen and deposited in the concerned box.  The function of taking lot was arranged by opposite party where the distinguished guest Sri. P.P. Saseendran, the then Vice Chariman of Press Academy invited to perform the function.  It was reported in Mathrubhumi daily with the photos of the function on 01.09.2010 wherein it was also published the name of the witness Meera/Complainant under the caption “Liva Shopping, 5 Sovereigns to Meera”.  This was also intimated to the complainant asking her to receive the 5 Sovereign.  On 10.01.2011 and 16.05.2011 opposite parties send communications and at last invited to receive 5 sovereigns from the function arranged for the same on 25.06.2011.  But no function was conducted and none of the dates intimated to complainant.  Though complainant was repeatedly invited to receive the gold of 5 sovereigns on different dated they neither conducted any function nor gave the sovereign.  At last it was intimated that the function will be conducted on 25.06.2011. But on that date also no function conducted to distribute the prize.  The complainant realized the fact then that was only an act of unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties for promoting their business and to make profit.  Complainant was invited many times to receive the prize but she was sent back saying one or the other reason whereby complainant suffered much mental agony and loss of money and time.  It was done willfully.  Opposite party is liable to compensate.  Hence this complaint.

Pursuant to the notice sent by the Forum 2^nd opposite party made appearance and filed version denying the allegations of complainant 1^st opposite party made no appearance and remained absent through out.  2^nd opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable since it is devoid of merits.  Complaint is not maintainable since there is no allegation of unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.  2^nd opposite party further contended as follows : This opposite party is an unnecessary party.  Liva Wedding Centre was closed long back and this opposite party had no connection with it.  This opposite party had no knowledge or information about the allegations made in the complaint.  The allegations that the complainant had purchased a churidar and she got a prize coupen and in lot she won 5 sovereigns of gold and non conducting of meeting declared to distribute the prize etc are not known to this opposite party.  Complainant is not entitled to get any relief from 1^st opposite party.  If the Forum finds any bonafide in the complaint 1^st opposite party only is liable.  According to the facts given complainant has to approach Civil court to get her remedy.  Hence to dismiss the complaint against 2^nd opposite party.

On the above pleadings the following issues have been taken for consideration.

1.  Whether there is any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed for?
3. Relief and cost.

The evidence consists of the chief affidavit of complainant and Ext.A1 to A7.  1^st opposite party remained absent throughout.  2^nd opposite party though filed version subsequently remained absent.  No evidence adduced by opposite parties.  2^nd opposite party did not even paid the cost ordered to pay.

Issues No.1 to 3 :

          Complainant’s case is that she had purchased Churidar from the opposite parties attracted by the advertisement offering prize coupen of 5 sovereigns.  But when she won the price opposite party did not distribute the prize.  She was invited for functions of distribution but no such function conducted any of the occasion by the opposite parties.  Complainant returned all the time.  1^st opposite party remained absent throughout but 2^nd opposite party made appearance and filed version stating that he has no connection with Liwa Weddings.  He has also contended that if it is found the complaint is genuine 1^st opposite party alone is liable for the same. 

          Complainant adduced evidence in tune with her pleading by means of affidavit evidence.  Ext.A1 is the Mathrubhumi daily dated 01.09.2010 wherein inaugural function conducted for taking lot had been reported.  The photograph inaugurating the function by P.P. Saseendran was also published together with the report. The report shows that Meera B. won the prize 5 sovereigns in the lot.  The news report also goes to show that there was a bumber offer of 100 sovereign that year 2010.  The statement of Managing Partner Muhammed Iqbal is also reported that wedding sarees, fashion churidars etc were made available for customers.  The new report continued to say Sri. P.P. Saseendran, the Press Academy Vice Chairman performed the taking lot and City Union Bank Senior Manager Sri. J. Venugopal also participated in the function.  This report has not been denied by the 2^nd opposite party.  2^nd opposite party has no case that such press report published into Mathrubhumi daily was false.  2^nd opposite party has also no case that the Managing Partner Muhammed Iqbal who has given the above statement reported in Mathrubhumi is not himself but someone.  This is a public function known to people widely and witnessed by many people.  Hence Ext.A1 is a best evidence to prove that the complainant Meera won 5 sovereign gold in the lot as offered by opposite parties.  Secondly Muhammed Iqbal 2^nd opposite party was Managing Partner of Liwa Wedding Centre.  Ext.A3 is the counter of coupen.  Ext.A3 goes to show Liwa Wedding Centre offered 100 Sovereign gold to 20 persons with 5 sovereigns of gold each.  Even the phone numbers are given in the coupen.  When such an offer is given the customers are entitled to get the prize legally.  The opposite parties are legally bound to distribute the prize to the customers.  If the price is denied that cheating is an act that amounts to unfair trade practice.  Though complainant herein is a winner opposite party did not deliver the offered gold to her by the opposite parties whereby opposite parties committed the offence of unfair trade practice defined under section 1(1)(a) of CPA.  Hence we have no hesitation to hold that there is unfair trade practice amounts to deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties.  Opposite parties are liable to give the 5 sovereigns of gold to complainant.  Complainant is also entitled for compensation.  She was many time invited by the opposite parties.  But she was compelled to return back.  Repeatedly invited and all the time sent back telling unjustifiable reason also is act of insulting her as a customer which, ofcourse, is a part of challenge to our traditional values.  It cannot be ignored the fact that it a declaration in public at large. Hence the mental strain and pain suffered out of insult and shame is ofcourse unbearable.  Hence we are of opinion that apart from 5 sovereigns she is also entitled for compensation of a sum of `25,000 together with an amount of `1000 as cost of this litigation.  The issues No.1 to 3 are found in favour of complainant and orders passed accordingly.

          In the result, complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to given 5 sovereigns of gold and to pay `25,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only) as compensation together with `1000 (Rupees One Thousand only) as cost of this litigation to complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the complainant is entitled for interest at the rate of 10% upon the market value of 5 sovereigns existing at the time of delivery of gold.  The complainant is at liberty to execute the order after the expiry of one month.

          Dated this the 15^th day of January, 2014.

                          Sd/-                      Sd/-               Sd/-

                       President               Member         Member   

APPENDIX

Exhibits for the Complainant

A1. Mathrubhumi daily dated 01.09.2010.

A2. Copy of Cash bill dated 26.08.2010.

A3. Coupon

A4. Notice dated 10.01.2011.

A5. Notice dated 16.05.2011.

A6. Copy of Lawyer notice dated 29.06.2011.

A7. Acknowledgment card.

Exhibits for the opposite party

Nil

Witness examined for the complainant

Nil

Witness examined for opposite party

Nil

      /forwarded by order/

                                                                     SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT