BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM: MEDAK AT SANGAREDDY
PRESENT: SRI P.V.SUBRAHMANYAM, B.A,B.L., PRESIDENT.
SMT U.SUNITA, M.A., LADY MEMBER.
SRI MEKALA NARSIMHAREDDY, M.A,LL.B.,P.G.D.C.P.L
MALE MEMBER.
Tuesday, the 24rd day of March, 2009
CC.NO.28/2008
Between:
Kompally Vijay Kumar S/o Veeraiah,
Aged about 60 years, Occ: Retd. MRO,
R/o H.No. 4-7-102, Prashanthnagar.
Sangareddy.
… complainant.
And
1. Quest Net India Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.,
Having its Regd. Office at Chennai,
And Branch office at #7, Surya Towers, S.P. Road
Secunderabad, Rep. By its Mnaging Director
Smt. Pushpam Appala Naidu.
2. Smt. Pushpam Appala Naidu W/o not known to the
Complainant. Managing Director, Quest Net india
Enterprises- Pvt. Ltd.,Having its Regd. Office at Chennai.
… Opposite parties.
This case came up for final hearing before us on 18.03.2009 in the presence of Sri J. Ram Reddy, Advocate for complainant ,Opposite party Nos.1 & 2 being absent, upon perusing the record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this forum delivered the following.
O R D E R
( Per Sri. P.V. Subrahmanyam, President)
The complaint is filed Under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 to direct opposite party Nos. 1& 2 to pay Rs. 57,000/-, the amount that
-2-
would have been received under the scheme sponsored by the opposite parties and also to pay Rs. 2,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony.
1). The contents of complaint in brief are as follows:-
The complainant retired from service on 31.03.2006 as Mandal Revenue Officer. During the month of June,2006 he went to the collectorate at Sangareddy to pursue his retirement benefits. At that time some persons introduced themselves as representatives of opposite party No. 1 and are associated with some persons like Smt. Rama who introduced herself as representative of opposite party No. 1. According to her Smt. Kavitha, a medical doctor at sangareddy and Smt. Akasaveni, a social worker of Thodelgudem village, Sangareddy Mandal were canvassing to promote the business of the opposite party No. 1. The representatives of opposite party No.1 canvassed in the collectorate that the opposite parties have introduced a scheme “QUEST NET” stating that if a person becomes a member of the scheme by paying Rs.30,000/- he gets a gold coin in the first instance and there after every week he will get amount through the company in the shape of cheques. They further stated that the member will get Rs.11,500/- in four months and three months there after will again get another amount of Rs.11,500/- and two months there after he will get a further amount of Rs.11,500/- and one month there after he will again get Rs.11,500/- and seven days there after he will get gift vouchers; thus he would get a total sum of Rs.57,500/- in eleven months and there after he would get regular income every month. The company’s representatives further convinced the complainant that a member shall introduce two members and see that they pay Rs.30,000/- each and they should also introduce two members each and make them pay Rs.30,000/- each. In view of the promises made by the representatives of opposite party No.1, the complainant paid Rs.30,000/- to them under a receipt with a fond hope that the amounts promised by the representatives of opposite party No.1 would be helpful in his retirement period. With grate difficulty the complainant has paid the amount on 23.06.2006. The complainant personally visited the office of opposite party No.1 and requested for payment of the money as promised, but he was
-3-
informed there, that he would get the amount soon from the head office at Chennai (opposite party No.2) and also get a gold coin as promised. But all the promises are proved to be false because the complainant did not get any money or gold coin except a cheque for Rs.2,170/- during July,2006. On 21.05.2008 when the complainant went to the office of opposite party No.1, to his surprise it was found closed and he came to know through neighbors that the opposite parties cheated number of persons like the complainant.
2). Opposite party No.2 with dishonest intention, to cheat public for their personal gain, introduced the scheme and made several innocent poor persons like the complainant to pay Rs.30,000/- each and thus cheated them. The opposite parties having accepted the deposit of Rs.30,000/- are bound to pay the amounts as promised and also send the gold coin. Adverse news appeared in news papers stating that the opposite parties have committed many financial irregularities and cheated several persons like the complainant who deposited Rs.30,000/- each and on seeing the same the complainant suffered mental agony and became sick as he is a victim in the hands of the opposite parties. Therefore the complainant is claiming Rs.57,000/- being the amount he would have got as a member, and claiming further amount of Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony. Hence the complaint.
3). The opposite parties 1 and 2 could not be served with notices personally. Notices were served to them by substituted service by publishing in new papers. Evidence affidavit of complainant filed. On the request of the advocate for complainant Exs.A1 to A20 are marked on behalf of the complainant. But the complainant has not referred to any of the said exhibits in his evidence affidavit. Written arguments on behalf of the complainant are filed by his advocate. No oral arguments are advanced. Perused the record.
4). The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to the amounts claimed in the complaint?
-4-
Point:
5). According to the complainant one Smt. Rama claiming herself to be a representative of opposite party No.1, along with some others ,persuaded the complainant to join as a member in a scheme started by opposite party No.1 by making a deposit of Rs.30,000/- by promising good returns for the deposit and believing their words the complainant deposited Rs.30,000/- on 23.06.2006 but he has not received the various amounts as promised by the said representatives and he realized that he was cheated. On enquiry also he came to know that the opposite parties and their representatives cheated several persons like the complainant. On 21.05.2008 when he went to opposite party No. 1, to his surprise he found the office closed and neighbors informed him that it was closed and several persons like the complainant were cheated by the company.
6). When notices in the complaint were returned unserved it was represented by the complainant’s advocate that opposite party No. 2 who is the managing director of opposite party No. 1,was in jail for cheating several persons. According to him even though he has deposited Rs.30,000/- in June, 2006, he received a cheque for Rs.2,170/-only in July, 2006 and he has not received Rs.57,500/- by way of periodical returns @ Rs. 11,500/- each on four occasions and gift vouchers within a span of eleven months from June, 2006 as promised by the representatives of the opposite parties, therefore he is entitled for the promised amount of Rs.57,500/- and for Rs.2,00,000/- towards damages and mental agony.
7). As the case of the complainant is that he was cheated by the opposite parties, at the out set we would like to say that cases of cheating are not within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. This view is supported by a decision of Hon’ble National Commission rendered in the case of R.R. Gopal @ R. Raja Gopal Vs The Chairman, Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, reported in I (1996)CPJ 143(NC), wherein it is held as follows: “The Legislature by using the words “deficiency” and “negligence” clearly intended that the remedy for intentional malicious acts are outside the jurisdiction of Consumer Forums under the Act”.
-5-
8) According to the complainant, a person by name Smt. Rama introduced herself to the complainant as representative of opposite party No. 1 and he believed her words and deposited Rs.30,000/- under Ex. A1 receipt. Even though the complainant worked as Mandal Revenue Officer and retired from service, he has not even taken care to verify her identity card, if any, to satisfy himself before making the deposit. The complainant instead of proceeding against the said Smt. Rama and/ or against the opposite parties for cheating him for appropriate action on the civil and criminal side, approached this forum which has no jurisdiction. In this view of the matter it is held that the complaint is not maintainable.
9). In Ex. A2 letter of opposite party No. 2 it is not stated that they were in receipt of Rs.30,000/- from the complainant through their representative Smt. Rama. It is not the case of the complainant that Smt. Rama, the alleged representative of opposite party No. 1, promised him that the opposite parties would dispatch to him a product i. e. The direction to Kaabah Medallion Set. Therefore reasonable doubt arises whether Ex.A2 relates to the transaction covered by Ex.A1 or it is independent of Ex.A1. Like wise Ex.A3. In circumstances it is not necessary to refer to other documents marked as exhibits on behalf of the complainant, especially when none of them was referred by the complainant in her evidence affidavit.
10). In view of the discussion supra it is held that the complainant is not entitled to any relief much less for the amounts claimed in the complaint. The point is answered against the complainant.
11). In the result the complaint is dismissed. No costs.
Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in the open forum this the 24th day of March, 2009.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Lady Member Male Member
