BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION:HYDERABAD.F.A.139/2008 against C.C.No.11/2006, District Forum, Nizamabad.
Between:
1. M/s Tata Tea Ltd.,
A Company Registered under the Companies Act, 1956
Having its packet tea division at P.B.No.2286, M.E.S.Road,
Yeshwanthpur, Bangalore-25
Represented by it’s Manager,
Finance, Mr.R Jagadeesh Kumar
2. M/s White Chief Tea Pvt. Ltd.,
8/2 KM stone, Sagar Road, Hyderabad-74
3. M/s J.K.Agencies represented by it’s……….
7-1-1265/2A, Mirchi compound, Nizamabad.
..Appellants/
Opp.parties 1 to 3
And
1. Sri D.Praveen
S/o Sri D. Gangadhar, aged about 20 yrs
R/o 11-3-252, Christian Colony,
Kanteswhar, Nizamabad. Respondent No.1/
Complainant
2. M/s Imprints, 602, Industrial town,
2nd Main, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 044 ….Respondent No.2
Counsel for the Appellants: Mr.J.Venudhar Reddy
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr.K.Visweswara Rao-R1
R2-served.
F.A.1209/2010 against C.C.No.11/2006, District Forum, Nizamabad.
Between:
1. D.Praveen
S/o D. Gangadhar, aged about 22 yrs
R/o.11-3-252, Christian Colony,
Kanteswhar, Nizamabad. ..Appellant/
Complainant
And
1. The Manager and Stockist
J.K.Agencies,
7-1-1265/2A, Mirchi compound, Nizamabad.
2. The Manager,
Tata Tea Ltd.,
Mess Road, Yashwanthpur,
Post Box No.2286,
Bangalore-500 022
3. The Manager,
M/s White Chief Tea Pvt. Ltd.,
8/2 KM stone, Sada Road, Hyderabad-500 074(H)
4. M/s Imprints, 602, Industrial town,
2nd Main, Rajajinagar, Bangalore-560 044 ….Respondents/
Opp.parties
Counsel for the Appellant:M/s.K.Visweswara Rao
Counsel for the Respondents:Mr.J.Venudhar Reddy-R1 to R3
R4-served.
QUORUM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI D.APPA RAO, PRESIDENT
AND
SMT. M.SHREESHA, HON’BLE MEMBER
WENESDAY, THE TWENTY NINTH DAY OF DECEMBER,
TWO THOUSAND TEN.
(Typed to the dictation of Smt. M.Shreesha , Hon’ble Member.)
***
Since both these appeals arise out of the same C.C.11/2006 they are being disposed of by a common order.
Aggrieved by the order in CC No.11/2006 on the file of District Forum, Nizamabad, the opposite parties 1 to 3 preferred this appeal and F.A.No.1209/2010 is preferred by the complainant.
The brief facts as set out in the case are that the complainant purchased a 1 kg. Gemini tea packet from Sri Krishna Sai Traders, Nizamabad on 6-2-2006 for Rs.132/-. When the complainant opened the packet he got one Hungama coupon no.155530 showing that he is entitled to get Rs.2,60,000/- if the coupon is shown to the stockist i.e. opposite party No.1 herein. The complainant submits that he approached opposite party No.1 on 13-2-2006 and showed the coupon and he was informed that opposite party No.1 would correspond with opposite party no.2 head office at Bangalore and the complainant faxed opposite party No.2 on the advise of opposite party No.1, but did not receive any reply. Thereafter also he made several phone calls, but did not receive any response. Hence the complaint for a direction to the opposite parties to pay Rs.2,60,000/- with interest, compensation and costs.
Opposite party no.2 filed counter stating that the person who purchased 1 kg of Gemini tea power is entitled for redemption of amount in the range of Rs.2 to Rs.51 and the complainant is not entitled to Rs.2,60,000/- as claimed by him. They also contend that an order was placed with an printing press in Bangalore for the supply of coupons known as M/s.Imprints situated at 602, Rajajinagar, Bangalore and these coupons were printed by that printer and M/s.Imprints is a necessary party to answer the allegations. Opposite party No.2 verified and confirmed to opposite party No.1 that there is no such coupon printed and there is no unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on their behalf.
Opposite parties 1 to 3 filed memo adopting the counter of opposite party No.2. The printer was impleaded as O.P.4.
The District Forum based on the evidence adduced i.e. Exs.A1 to A15 and B1 to B3 allowed the complaint directing opposite parties 1 to 3 to jointly and severally pay Rs.50,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- towards costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, opposite parties 1 to 3 preferred this appeal.
Respondent/complainant filed his written arguments. Ex.A1 is the original Gemini Hungama tea packet and Ex.A2 is original Gemini Hangama coupon. Ex.A3 is the purchase receipt issued by Sri Krishna Sai Traders. Ex.A2 shows the Hungama offer No.155530. It is pertinent to note that Ex.A2 which is the original Hungama offer coupon has the Tata monogram which is not denied by the opposite parties only the amount of Rs.2,60,000/- is denied by the opposite parties stating that a 1 Kg. Gemini Hungama packet offers only Rs.2/- to Rs.51/- redemption. We also observe from the record that Ex.A2 which is the original coupon bearing TATA monogram and also Ex.A1 which is the TATA tea packet advertising the hungama offer does not anywhere state the range of amount which a purchaser can win or even the maximum limit of Rs.51/- on 1kg packet as contended by opposite party No.2. The contention of the opposite party no.2 that the figure on the coupon is not printed by them and is printed by M/s.Imprints, Bangalore and therefore they are not liable for any misprint is unsustainable since the complainant is not a privity to any sort of agreement or contract between the opposite parties and the printer. Though the appellants filed the Gemini Hungama offer which they had circulated to A.P. stockists, still there is no substantial evidence on record to support their contention that the figure Rs.2,60,000/- on the Gemini Hungama with their own company’s monogram is fabricated. The contract or agreement between the manufacturer and the printer has nothing to do with the complainant herein. There is no substantial evidence filed by opposite party no.4 in the form of affidavit or otherwise to establish that the amount in the coupon, Ex.A2 is a misprint. In the light of Exs.A1 and A2, we are of the considered view that the complainant has been able to prove his case and in the absence of any evidence on record that the coupon is a fabricated one, the complainant is entitled to the prize amount evidenced under Ex.A1. The learned counsel for the appellants/opposite parties contended that the figure on Ex.A2 is a mis-print. Even for argument sake, if it is a mis-print, to reiterate the complainant cannot be made liable for any sort of agreement between the manufacturer and the printer. When the complainant has established his case by filing the original tea packet purchased by him and the coupon, we are of the considered view that he is entitled for the entire amount on the coupon. We do not see any substantial grounds as to why the District Forum, while holding that there is deficiency in service, has awarded Rs.50,000/- instead of the entire amount of Rs.2,60,000/-on the coupon evidenced under Ex.A2. However, we are of the considered view that opposite party no.2 and 3 are liable and the order of the District Forum against opposite party no.1 the stockist is set aside.
In the result, F.A.No.139/2008 filed by the opposite parties is dismissed and the appeal filed by the complainant, F.A.No.1209/2010 is allowed and the order of the District Forum is modified increasing the amount awarded by the District Forum from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.2,60,000/- to be paid by opposite parties 2 and 3 only together with costs of Rs.1,000/-. We set aside the default clause of interest at 9% p.a. Case against opposite party No.1 (stockist) and opposite party No4 (printer) is dismissed.
Sd/-PRESIDENT.
Sd/-MEMBER.
JM Dt.29-12-2010
