By Sri. K. Gheevarghese, President:<br /> <br /> <br /> Complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.<br /> <br /> <br /> The sum up of the complaint is as given below.<br /> <br /> The Complainant is the purchaser of an Akai T.V purchased under the terms as the bonus offer published in medias. As per the offer the value of the T.V would be given to the purchaser in post dated cheque which can be drawn after 5 years and 11 months from the date of purchase. The first Opposite Party is the dealer of the Akai Television. The Complainant was influenced by the advertisement of the Opposite Parties in wider extent. The first Opposite<br /> Party sold the Akai C.T Television 2985 with serial No.50584 along with an antina, booster <br /> (Contd......2)<br /> - 2 -<br /> and a Stabilizer on payment of Rs.31,225/- on 09.07.1998. On the same day of purchase a cheque of amount Rs.30,000/- numbered 012554 dated 09.06.2004 drawn on the Siam Commercial Bank, PCL Mumbai in the name of the Complainant was given. A bill numbered 53 was also issued to the Complainant towards the same. The cheque was sent for collection through Canara Bank Branch Kalpetta and it was dishonoured and returned on 24.06.2004 along with a memo of the Indusind Bank Nariman Point Branch Mumbai dated 15.06.2004. The endorsement for dishonour of the cheque “arrangement discontinued banks operation closed, please do not represent”. The Complainant approached the first Opposite Party later and requested him the payment of the promised amount. The 1st Opposite Party was acting in the role of the dealer to the 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties. In utter dismay to the Complainant the 1st Opposite Party tried to evade from the responsibility and more over insulted the Complainant. The Opposite Parties published fraudulently to get more business <br /> and the promise made was not accomplished. The Complainant would have not purchased the same brand of T.V unless influenced by the advertisement. The act of the Opposite Parties are <br /> nothing but deficiency of service and unfair trade practice, which also caused mental pain and agony to the Complainant. The cause of action for the Complainant arose from the date of purchase on 09.07.1998 and on 09.06.2004 when the cheque was matured on 24.06.2004 there after the dishonour of cheque at Kalpetta. There may be a direction to pay Rs. 30,000/- along with interest of 18% from the date of cheque till realisation and to return Rs. 130/- the collection charges, the Compensation of Rs.15,000/- is also to be paid by the Opposite Parties towards mental pain and agony. The Complainant is also entitled to get Rs. 5,000/- towards the cost.<br /> <br /> The 1st Opposite Party filed version. The 2nd Opposite Party is set Exparty. The 1st Opposite Party averred in the version that the sale of the Akai TV with bonus offer is admitted. There was no offer from the part of the 1st Opposite Party and if any advertisement was<br /> (Contd.......3)<br /> - 3 -<br /> published it was not within the responsibility of this Opposite party. More over there was no enquiry from anyone else regarding the advertisement which are seen in the daily. The T.V, Antina, Booster, stabilizer were never disposed at such a rate from the shop of the first Opposite Party as claimed by the Complainant. Apart from that the first Opposite Party has not given any cheque to the Complainant. The 1st Opposite Party maintained accurate bill and had given guarantee card to the Complainant. More over beyond the terms expressed in bill and guarantee card the 1st Opposite Party has no responsibility. The Complainant did not meet the 1st Opposite Party when the cheque of 2nd and 3rd Opposite Parties was received. Before receiving the copy of this petition somebody else had enquired to the 1st Opposite Party whether anything can be done with respect to the dishonour of the cheque. This Opposite Party has the knowledge of that deal only in this extent. No advertisement was given by the 1st Opposite Party to canvas any business and further if any advertisement was published it was not within the knowledge and awareness of this Opposite Party. There is no deficiency or unfair trade practice on the part of the 1st Opposite Party. The complaint is to be dismissed with cost to this Opposite Party. <br /> <br /> The points in consideration are.<br /> 1.Is there any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Parties.<br /> 2.Relief and cost.<br /> <br /> Point No.1: <br /> The Complainant is examined as PW1. Ext.A1 is the bill issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the Complainant. The cash bill contains the specification that the 1st Opposite Party is the dealer of Akai Rs. 31,225/- was received by the 1st Opposite Party towards the sale of Akai CT 2985 serial No.50584, Antina, vediocon Booster and stabilizer sakthi. The cheque<br /> (Contd.......4)<br /> 4 -<br /> issued by the Opposite Party drawn from the Siam Commercial Bank PCL Nariman Point, Mumbai of Rs. 30,000/- is the Ext.A2. The drawer of the cheque is the 2nd Opposite Party. The cheque returned memo sent to Canara bank, Kalpetta is the Ext. A3. The Complainant sent notice. The copy of the notice and postal receipts are the Ext.A4. The advertisement in Malayala Manorama daily on 6th July 1998 is given detailing the offer of the 2nd Opposite Party. Ext.A5 is the advertisement in the news paper. On examination of the Complainant it is testimonied that the advertisement is given by the 2nd Opposite Party. The T.V is still in use <br /> of the Complainant. No notice is seen sent to the 1st Opposite Party. Further as a dealer the service rendered by the 1st Opposite Party is satisfactory to the Complainant.<br /> <br /> The cheque is drawn by the 2nd Opposite Party. The Complainant does not know who has written the cheque. The 1st Opposite Party is examined as OPW1. The Complainant has no case that the cheque is drawn under the instigation of the 1st Opposite Party and under the collective responsibility of the 3rd Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party is responsible for payment of the amount offered in the scheme. The act of the 2nd Opposite Party is established as unfair trade practice. <br /> <br /> Point No.2: <br /> As per Ext.A2, the cheque issued to the Complainant is for an amount of Rs.30,000/- which is dishonoured accordingly. The 2nd Opposite Party is liable to pay the Complainant the amount offered in the scheme along with cost and compensation.<br /> <br /> In the result the complaint is partly allowed the 2nd Opposite Party is directed to give the Complainant Rs.30,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand only) along with 18% interest from the date of filing the complaint till realisation of the amount. The complainant is entitled to get the compensation of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand only) along with cost of Rs.1,000/-<br /> (Contd.......5)<br /> - 5-<br /> (Rupees One thousand only) from the 2nd Opposite Party within one month from the date of this Order. In case of any failure on the part of the Opposite Party, the complainant is entitled to execute this order as per the provisions of law. <br /> <br /> <br /> Pronounced in open Forum on this the 12th day of February 2008. <br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT: Sd/-<br /> <br /> MEMBER: Sd/-<br /> <br /> /True Copy/<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Complainant:<br /> <br /> PW1. Balan Complaiannt.<br /> <br /> Witnesses for the Opposite Parties:<br /> <br /> OPW1. Gokulan. Business.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Complainant: <br /> <br /> A1. Cash Bill. dt:09.07.1998.<br /> A2. Cheque. dt:09.06.2004.<br /> A3. Cheque Return Memo. dt:15.06.2004.<br /> A4 Series. Copy of the Notice and Postal Receipt. dt:22.07.2004.<br /> A5. Advertisement in the News paper. dt:06.07.1998.<br /> <br /> Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:<br /> <br /> Nil.<br /> <br /> <br /> PRESIDENT, CDRF, WAYANAD.<br /> <br /> <br /> Compared by:<br /> <br /> M/<br /> <br /> <br />