(Delivered on 06/08/2018)

PER MR. JUSTICE A.P.BHANGALE, HON’BLE PRESIDENT.

1.         Heard submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent No. 1. The appellant have already submitted their written notes of argument in writing.

2.         By this appeal,  appellant  have challenged  the  validity  and  legality  of the  order passed  exparte against the appellant- Videocon Industries  Ltd.

3.         The appellant (O.P.) had declared  a scheme  styled and titled as    “Mano Ya Naa  Mano” to sell their jumbo T.V. model  of 34 inches wide for sum of Rs. 19,990/- on the condition  that such  purchaser  would  receive entitlement certificate  to claim another T.V.  of 32 inches  after 35 months  for  which,  purchase of   T.V. would be free of consideration.   As per the  scheme  declared price of 34 inches T.V  was of Rs. 12,990/- + cash in the sum of Rs. 7000/- to be  paid by the buyer  in advance  to claim entitlement  certificate  valid  after two years from the date of earlier T.V.  According to the complainant,  O.P. refused  to hand over the T.V. which was offered free after period of two years from the date of earlier purchase. The complaint was filed to claim sum of Rs. 19,990/- on account of breach of agreement. The complainant had also prayed for compensation in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- and litigation cost  in the sum of Rs. 5,000/- which was granted by the Forum.

4.         The learned advocate of the respondent No. 1 submitted that  the O.P.(now appellant)  was duly  served and they had acknowledged  the service. They  were  directed to attend  the  consumer complaint  on 19/01/2013 by summons outward No. 613/2012, dated 20/12/2012 issued from the learned  District Consumer Forum, Nagpur. However, the notice was duly served to the  O.P. but  they have failed to attend  before the Consumer Forum below and in the result reasoned  impugned order was passed by the learned District Consumer Forum, Nagpur which also mentioned  about the scheme  declared  by the O.P.  to offer one T.V. free upon purchase of  one T.V.

5.         We have seen  the copies of  documents relied  upon  as written submission  filed by the appellant. In our view  the  complainant  wanted  to  rely upon  promise made in the scheme “Manno Yaa Naa Mano” to offer one T.V.  on account of purchase of 1 T.V.  as declared in the scheme.  In other  word  one buyer buys jumbo T.V. of 34 inches wide, he can get entitlement  certificate valid after  two years  to claim another T.V. of 32 inches known as Plasma T.V. in respect of  MRP thereof. That being so, when  the seller   represents to  the buyer  that he would be  beneficiary under the scheme  and  buyer  believes  and act upon the respondent.  The principel of estoppel becomes  operative and seller  can not go back  upon his  promise. Hence,  an  impugned order was passed in  accordance with  law , since the O.P. remained  absent  despite the fact that proceedings  was duly served, O.P. can not  have grievance that the complaint was heard exparte in its absence.  Therefore, we do not find any ground acceptable to interfere with the impugned order.  The appeal is thus  dismissed. Cost of this appeal quantified in the sum of Rs. 5000/- shall be paid by the appellant to   respondent.