KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL No. 720/2015
ORDER DATED: 31.10.2018
(Against the Order in C.C. No. 373/2011 of CDRF, Thrissur)
PRESENT :
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
SMT. BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
APPELLANTS:
- Manager, Bharti Airtel, Near Saroja Nursing Home, Shornur Road, Thrissur.
- Manager, Bharti Airtel Circle Office, S.L. Avenue, N.H. Bye Pass, Kundannur, Maradu P.O, Cochin.
(By Adv. R. Chandrapraveen & Rajmohan. C.S)
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
P.K. Thomas, Pulikkottil House, P.O, Kakkassery, Thrissur.
JUDGMENT
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
Opposite parties in C.C. No. 373/2011 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur have filed this appeal challenging the Order of the forum directing them to deliver an LCD TV at the house of complainant and also to pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and cost of Rs. 1,000/- to complainant. A further direction was also issued that if TV was not delivered and compensation and cost ordered not paid within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order opposite party would be liable to pay additional compensation of Rs. 5000/-. Aggrieved by the Order and directions issued they have filed this appeal.
2. Short facts necessary for disposal of the appeal can be summed up thus: Complainant, an airtel mobile subscriber, participated in a contest conducted by the opposite parties in which he became a successful to get a prize of LCD TV. The contest contemplated of answering questions asked for through SMS. He had incurred a sum of Rs. 20,000/- as SMS charges for participating in the contest but the prize was not delivered as promised, was his case to impute deficiency in service against opposite parties and for issuing directions to them to deliver the LCD TV at his house and also to pay compensation and cost. Opposite party resisted the claim filing version admitting that complainant was the prize winner in the contest conducted and had won LCD TV as prize. It was contended that when asked to collect the LCD TV from the office he did not comply and insisted for delivery of the TV at his house. Opposite parties submitted that they are ready and willing to hand over the LCD TV to complainant and there is no deficiency in service on their part.
3. Evidence in the case consisted of the testimony of complainant as PW1 and Exts. P1 & P2 on his side. No evidence was adduced by the opposite parties.
4. Appreciating the materials produced the forum below, upholding the case of the complainant, concluded that there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties in not delivering the prize, LCD TV, to the complainant, the prize winner. Allowing his complaint opposite parties were directed to deliver the LCD TV with compensation and cost as indicated earlier.
5. We heard the counsel on both sides and perused the records.
6. Learned counsel for appellants/opposite parties submitted that delivery of the prize, LCD TV, to the complainant could not be effected by the fault of the complainant who insisted for its delivery at his house. When a contest is conducted and prizes are offered the participants/contestants have to obey the rules and norms fixed thereof. When he was directed to appear before the office to collect LCD TV he should have complied and the failure to do so has led to non-delivery of LCD TV, according to the counsel. Such contests are conducted for promotional purpose and so much so taking of photos and publishing them on delivery of the prizes is needed and, therefore, insistence was made to complainant to collect the TV from the office at Ernakulam, according to the counsel. Appellants are even now prepared to deliver the TV, the prize won by the complainant, submits the counsel.
7. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant, who was appointed as amicus curie, submits that there is no merit in the submission made and grounds canvassed to assail the Order of the lower forum. Opposite parties indulged in unfair trade practice in not delivering the prize and the complainant had incurred a lot of expense for sending SMS, is the submission of the learned counsel.
8. Perusing the records with reference to the submissions of both sides we find that the case canvassed by appellants imputing default on the part of complainant to come to their office and collect the prize LCD TV lacks merit. Even assuming that they insisted so for promotional purpose once complaint was filed before the forum they should have been courteous enough to produce the LCD TV, the prize won by the complainant, before the forum and handed it over to him. They need not have produced the LCD TV at the house of the complainant, but at least before the forum. They failed to do so. In the facts and materials produced there is no bonafides in the objection taken for non delivery. The fact that the complainant as prize winner was entitled to have the prize of LCD TV is not disputed. This complaint was filed on 31.08.2011 and at this stage directing opposite parties to hand over LCD TV to him may not be advisable. Opposite party in lieu of LCD TV, the prize offered in the contest, shall pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- to the complainant with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- as ordered by the lower forum. We vacate the direction of the forum imposing additional compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for default in payment within two months after receipt of the order of the forum. However, in case the sum ordered in lieu of the price of LCD TV and also compensation fixed is not paid within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment, it is ordered the sum fixed towards value of T.V and compensation awarded shall carry interest at 8% per annum till realization. Appellants/opposite parties shall pay the sum of Rs. 25,000/- fixed as the price of LCD TV with compensation of Rs. 10,000/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant within the time fixed. Both parties are directed to suffer their costs.
9. Sum deposited by the appellant for entertaining the appeal shall be released to the complainant on his application and it shall be adjusted in the sums payable by opposite parties.
JUSTICE S.S. SATHEESACHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
BEENA KUMARY. A : MEMBER
jb
