DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BARNALA, PUNJAB.
Complaint Case No : 402/2016
Date of Institution : 16.02.2016
Date of Decision : 11.05.2017
Satish Kumar aged about 45 years son of Sh. Ram Chander, resident of # B-IV/772, Janda Wala Road, Barnala, Tehsil and District Barnala. …Complainant
Versus
Nice Electronic Group, Sekha Road, Barnala through its Managing Director/Partner/Authorized Signatory Jagdev Singh son of Jangir Singh, resident of Sekha Road, Barnala.
…Opposite Party
Complaint Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Present: Sh. Dhiraj Kumar counsel for the complainant.
Sh. JS Mann counsel for opposite party.
Quorum.-
1. Shri S.K. Goel : President
2. Shri Tejinder Singh Bhangu : Member
ORDER
(SHRI S.K. GOEL PRESIDENT):
The complainant namely Satish Kumar has filed the present complaint under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short as Act) against Nice Electronic Group (In short as opposite party).
2. The facts emerging from the present complaint are that the opposite party floated a sale promotion scheme at Barnala and the complainant was made a member of the said scheme vide Membership ID Nos. 426, 428 to 443, 445 to 450 of the opposite party. It is further averred that as per the brochure supplied by the opposite party, the said scheme was to be completed in 12 installments and all the members were to pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- per month (each membership ID) as installment from 16.5.2013 to 16.5.2014. It is further averred that in the terms and conditions of the said scheme it is mentioned that in case any member wins any price in any draw the said member need not to pay the remaining installments regarding that membership ID. In case no prize is won by any member in any draw an amount of Rs. 14,000/- in cash would be repaid or refrigerator or inverter or LCD or computer would be given to such a member on completion of the said scheme.
3. It is alleged that as per the terms and conditions the complainant paid all the 12 monthly installments of Rs. 1,000/- each in all the membership IDs to the opposite party. The said scheme was completed in the month of May 2014 but the complainant did not win any prize in any of the draw of the said scheme in any membership ID. As such the complainant is entitled to cash amounting to Rs. 14,000 x 23 = Rs. 3,22,000/- as mentioned in the brochure. However, on completion of the said scheme the opposite party failed to repay the said amount or to give refrigerator or inverter or LCD or computer to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant approached the opposite party and requested to pay the said amount but the opposite party refused to pay the said amount on 16.5.2014. Thus, it is alleged that it is a case of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. Therefore, the present complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs.-
1) For directing the opposite party to make payment of Rs. 3,22,000/- to the complainant.
2) To pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses.
3) Any other relief which this Forum consider proper.
4. Upon notice of this complaint, the opposite party appeared and filed written version taking legal objections interalia on the grounds of locus standi, no cause of action, estoppal, complainant is not a consumer, the controversy is required to be proved by leading evidence,so this matter is to be adjudicated by the civil court, misuse of process of law, bad for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties and complainant himself is a defaulting party.
5. On merits, the opposite party admitted the sale promotion scheme and the membership of the complainant. However, the opposite party alleged that the complainant himself committed default in paying the installments and as such he was not remained member of the opposite party. In fact the scheme was to be completed in 12 months and every member was to pay an installment of Rs. 1,000/- each on every month w.e.f 16.5.2013 to 16.5.2014. The completed is a defaulting party and has not complied with the terms and conditions of the scheme. Therefore, he is not entitled for any relied. They have denied the other allegations of the complainant and finally prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant has tendered into evidence his own affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of brochures Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-24 and closed the evidence.
7. To rebut the case of the complainant the opposite party tendered into evidence affidavit of Jagdev Singh Partner of Nice Electronic Group Ex.OP-1 and closed the evidence.
8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.
9. In order to prove his case the complainant has placed on record his affidavit Ex.C-1 wherein he has reiterated his case as mentioned in the complaint. Apart from his affidavit the complainant has placed on record copies of brochures/pamphlets Ex.C-2 to Ex.C-24. Perusal of the said pamphlets shows the sale promotion schemes. Apart from the said document the complainant has not placed on record any other document, receipt, payment voucher etc.
10. It is the case of the complainant that he has taken membership of 23 schemes and in these schemes he contributed Rs. 12,000/- per scheme and it is also the condition of the scheme that in case the complainant did not win any prize then he is entitled to cash amounting to Rs. 14,000/- in each scheme i.e. total amount of Rs. 14,000 x 23 = Rs. 3,22,000/-. However, the complainant has not placed on record any payment voucher or receipt or any bank statement or accounts to indicate that the complainant has been got the membership of 23 schemes and had deposited Rs. 12,000/- in each scheme. Even, there is nothing on record to indicate that the opposite party has admitted the payment of the said amount. No writing or document duly signed by the opposite party has been placed on record. The onus to prove that the complainant has paid the above said amount was upon the complainant. However, the complainant has miserably failed to prove his case.
11. It is held by Hon'ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in case reported as 2016 (2) CLT-35 titled Devdutt Versus Kamlesh and Another, wherein in para No. 9 it was observed that it is rudimentary principle of jurisprudence that documentary evidence will always get preponderance over the oral evidence because it is well know axiom of law that 'men may tell lies, but the documents cannot'. In view of the ibid citation there is no merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the complainant that the oral evidence is sufficient to prove the case of the complainant.
12. As a result of the above discussion, the complainant has failed to prove his case and same is dismissed. However, no order as to cost or compensation. Copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of costs. The file be consigned to the records.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM:
11th Day of May 2017
(S.K. Goel)
President
(Tejinder Singh Bhangu)
Member
