IN THE KODAGU DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM MADIKERI

SRI. C.V. MARGOOR,PRESIDENT

O R D E R

1. This complaint filed by Mr. P.K. Belliappa s/o. Kuttappa, aged 60 years, resident of Halugunda Village, Kodangeri Post, Virajpet Taluk, Kodagu District against the opponents to pass an order directing the opponents to settle the amount deposited by him a sum of Rs.3,500/- vide scheme Sl.No.3601 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from June, 2015 till its payment.  Further direct the opponents to pay Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- as damages and loss suffered by the complainant and cost of this litigation.

2. The opponent no.1 has been running Royal Mart Shop selling electronic and furnitures at Gowri Complex, Mysore Road, Gonikoppal Town, Virajpet Taluk for the past several years.  The opponent no.2 is agent of opponent no.1 for Royal Mega scheme started by the opponent no.1.  The opponent no.1 under Royal Megha scheme made assurance to the complainant and others to sell 35 scheme items and in the said scheme he offered to select beneficiaries.  The complainant had joined the scheme and paid Rs.100 each in 35 installments commenced from 06/11/2014 and closed his account with opponent no.1 in June, 2015.

3. It is the further case of complainant that after closure of the scheme and lapse of 50 days has approached the opponent to pay the commodities shown in the scheme chart/booklet issued by him.  The opponent started giving evasive reply and after some time the opponent no.1 has closed the shop premises and thereby committed deficiency in service by not returning the deposit amount or goods/ commodities mentioned in the scheme chart.  There after the complainant has issued legal notice dated 23/03/2018 calling upon the opponents to settle his scheme account or hand over the commodities of his choice.  The opponents despite the service of notice neither replied nor handed over the commodities as assured by them.  Hence this complaint.

4. The notice sent by this forum on opponent no.2 was duly served whereas the opponent no.1 refused to receive the registered post as per the postal endorsement hence holding the service as sufficient the opponents 1 and 2 are set exparte.  The complainant filed his affidavit in lieu of evidence and got marked exhibits P1 to P4 documents.

5. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the complainant and the points that would arise for determination are as under;

1. Whether the complainant proves that the act of opponents not to hand over the commodities as mentioned in the scheme chart or booklet or payment of installment amounts to deficiency in service?
2. Whether the complainant proves that the complaint is within the limitation period? 
3. What order?

6. Our findings on the above points is as under;

• Point No.1:- In the affirmative
• Point No.2:-In the Negative
• Point No.3:-  As per final order for the below

R E A S O N S

7. Points 1 to 3  :-The complainant in the affidavit filed in lieu of evidence reiterated the averments of complaint.  Further the complainant produced exhibit P1 Royal Mega Scheme Card issued by the opponent no.1 in his name.  According to this the complainant has paid 35 installments in 35 weeks continuously a sum of Rs.3,500/- and the last installment was paid on 03/06/2015.  Exhibit P1 contained the nature of commodities to be given to the customers as and when lottery draw was drawn at the end of each week or otherwise if any customer does not get lucky draw in any one of the weeks at last i.e. after completion of 35 weeks he is entitled for any one of the items which mentioned in chart.  Exhibit P2 is legal notice dated 23/03/2018 issued to the opponents and exhibits P3 and P4  are the postal receipts and acknowledgements for having received exhibit P2 notice by the opponents.  According to the averments of complaint and affidavit evidence the complainant has paid Rs.100/- every week and he has paid in all 35 weeks installments regularly.  After close of the scheme on 03/06/2015 the opponents did not pay the commodities mentioned in exhibit P1 Megha Scheme chart.  The complainant is consumer under the act since he has participated in the scheme by paying Rs.100/- per week though he was not lucky in the lucky draw scheme but he is entitled for any one of the articles as shown in the Megha scheme chart.  The opponent no.1 being owner of the scheme and opponent no.2 being agent who introduced the complainant to the opponent and both of them have committed the act of deficiency in service by not providing any one of the scheme article/commodities to the complainant on completion of the scheme. 

8. According to exhibit P1 the scheme was ended on 03/06/2015 i.e. the last installment of the 35^th week.  According to exhibit P1 on every Thursday at 4-30 p.m lucky draw was conducted in the presence of members of the scheme.  If any one of the member did not get lucky draw even after the end of the scheme  he is entitled for any one of the article mentioned in the scheme.  According to the averments of complaint and affidavit evidence the complainant did not get lucky draw even after the end of scheme on 03/06/2015.  Therefore, the cause of action has arisen to the complainant to get any one of the article as per exhibit P1 megha scheme chart on 03/06/2015.  It is averred in the complaint and affidavit evidence that inspite of repeated approach the opponent No.1 has failed to pay the commodities shown in the megha scheme chart even after the lapse of 50 days from the end of the scheme.  There after the opponent no.1 has closed the shop premises.  It shows that even after closing the shop the complainant would have approached this Forum within two years from the date of cause of action or 50 days from 03/06/2015.  But this complaint has been filed on 01/09/2018. 

9. The complainant should have filed the complaint on or before 01/09/2017 within two years from the date of cause of action.  Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act says that the District Forum shall not admit a complaint unless it is filed within two years from the date on which the cause of action has arisen.  Therefore, the complaint is barred by limitation as it is filed three years from the date of cause of action.  Hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on the point of limitation.  Accordingly, we proceed to pass the following ;

O R D E R

1. The complaint filed by Mr. P.K. Belliappa s/o. Kuttappa is dismissed.
2. In the circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own cost.
3. Furnish the copy of the order to the complainant and opponents at free of cost.

(Dictated to the Stenographer, got it transcribed, corrected and pronounced in the open Forum on this 29^th day of DECEMBER, 2018)

                                                  (C.V. MARGOOR)

                                                      PRESIDENT 

                                                (M.C. DEVAKUMAR)

                                                        MEMBER