BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BHIWANI.
Complaint No.:178 of 2014.
Date of Institution: 07.07.2014.
Date of Decision:27.11.2015
- Hari Kishan Jangra son of Sh. Brahma Nand Jangra. 2. Aman Kumar Jangra son of Shri Hari Kishan Jangra, both residents of village Khairari, District Rohtak.
….Complainants.
Versus
- R.K. Marketing & Networking, Dadri Gate, Kaunt Road, near River, Bhiwani through its Proprietor.
- Surender son of Narsi Dhanak (Agent), resident of village Nimari, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
- Rakesh son of Shri Shiv Dhan Jangra (Agent), resident of village Nimari, Tehsil and District Bhiwani.
…...Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT U/S 12 OF CONSUMER PROECTION ACT.
BEFORE: - Shri Rajesh Jindal, President
Shri Balraj Singh, Member
Smt. Ansuya Bishnoi, Member
Present:- Complainants in person.
Shri Bijender Yadav, Advocate for Ops no. 1 & 2.
Shri L.K. Ahuja, Advocate for OP no. 3.
ORDER:-
Rajesh Jindal, President:
The case of the complainants in brief, is that they purchased two coupons No. 3345 and 3352 from Ops on the assurance that there is assured prize for everyone in this lottery system and paid their regular installments. The complainants alleged that the payment of Rs. 250/- would be made on weekly basis for 15 weeks and they would get guaranteed prizes. It is alleged that on the pamphlet it was published that in case anyone not get any product in 15 weeks then he would be given a Alto Car. It is also alleged that on paying the weekly installments, but no prize was given to them till 14 weeks and on 15th week OPs have informed the complainants that they won a cooler each as prize. The complainants approached the Ops to give the prize but they lingering the matter on one pretext or the other. The complainants alleged that they visited the respondents for 15-20 times but they did not take any heed on the request of the complainants. The complainants further alleged that due to the act and conduct of the respondents, he had to suffer mental agony and physical harassment. Hence, it amounts to deficiency in service on the part of respondents and as such they had to file the present complaint.
2. On appearance, the Ops no. 1 & 2 filed written statement alleging therein that the complainants have only paid first installment and thereafter they did not pay any installment, because the complainants themselves stated that they did not keep with the answering respondents in their networking marketing and their membership was rejected. It is submitted that the answering respondents never approached to the complainants and insisted them to join their networking company. It is further submitted that complainants are not entitled to any kind of compensation from the answering respondents. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties no. 1 & 2 and complaint of the complainants are liable to be dismissed with costs.
3. OP No. 3 on appearance also filed separate written statement. It is submitted that the complainants have accrued no cause of action to file and maintain the present complainant. Hence, in view of the facts and circumstances mentioned above, there is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party no. 3 and complaint of the complainants are liable to be dismissed.
4. In order to make out his case, the complainant has placed on record affidavit Annexure CW1/A and documents Annexure C-1 & Annexure C2.
5. In reply thereto, the opposite parties placed on record supporting affidavit.
6. Written arguments have been filed on behalf of the parties, and we have perused the record.
7. According to the complainant he deposited Rs. 250/- per week for 15 weeks, total Rs. 3750/- each with the OP no. 1 against the coupon No. 3345 & 3352 issued by the OP no. 1 for the scheme of networking and marketing launched by it. As per the scheme of OP no. 1, the complainant at the end of 15th week, he won the cooler as prize costing around Rs. 8,000/- but the Ops failed to deliver the cooler to the complainant.
8. Ops no. 1 & 2 refuted the allegation of the complainant and asserted that the complainant has paid only one installment under the said scheme of networking and marketing against coupon No. 3345 & 3352 and as per the terms and conditions of scheme the membership of the complainant was rejected because the complainant has failed to pay the remaining installments. The OP no. 3 has denied the allegation of the complainant on the ground that he has no concern with the matter.
9. In view of the submission of the parties, we have examined the relevant material on record. The complainant in support of his contention has produced the photo copy Annexure C-1 of networking and marketing scheme issued by the OP no. 1. On the last page of Annexure C-1, there are 5 columns, against the column of installment of Rs. 250/- some dates have been mentioned in the column of “date of payment”, and in the column of “agent sign”, it has no initials. According to the complainant, these dates have been mentioned by the Ops when the complainant paid weekly installments to the Ops, but the Ops have denied the said payments and alleged that the said dates are written by the complainant himself. Considering the contention of the parties, we are of the view that merely mention of dates against installments of Rs. 250/- does not prove the contention of the complainant that he has paid 15 installments of Rs. 250/- each to OP no. 1, because there is no initial in the column of “agent sign”.
10. Admittedly, the scheme of networking and marketing was launched by OP no. 1 to attract the consumers to become the member of the scheme and to pay the weekly installments against the coupon issued by the OP no. 1 to the consumers and with the attraction of draw of prizes and the draws to be made out every Monday. We are of the view, the scheme in question launched and advertised by Ops, come within the definition of unfair trade practice. We hold that the Ops were indulged in unfair trade practice, by attracting the consumers for the draw of prizes under their networking and marketing scheme against the payment of weekly installments. Therefore, the Ops have made themselves liable to be burdened with the compensation. Taking into account of the facts of the case, we award a compensation of Rs. 2500/- to the complainant against the Ops no. 1 & 2. The Ops no. 1 & 2 shall be liable to pay the awarded amount, jointly and severally. Certified copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room, after due compliance.
Announced in open Forum.
Dated: 27.11.2015. (Rajesh Jindal)
President,
District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Bhiwani.
(Ansuya Bishnoi), (Balraj Singh),
Member. Member.
