Per Sri M.V.L.Radha Krishna Murthy, Member:

                This complaint is filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the complainant praying to pass an award for Rs.2,60,490/- (comprising of principal amount along with matured amount Rs.1,87,000/- with interest at 7% p.a. from 23-05-07 to         23-08-09 i.e., Rs.50,490/-, for mental agony Rs.10,000/-, for compensation Rs.10,000/- and legal expenses of Rs.3000/-) with interest at 12% p.a. in favour of complainant and against opposite parties.

The brief facts of the complaint are as follows:

                Complainant is resident of Guntur.  Opposite parties are doing business under the name and style of Great Way Shopping Pvt. Ltd. around all AP, that one such is in Guntur.  1^st opposite party is the Chairman of said company and 2^nd opposite party is Branch Manager in Guntur.  They are doing business in provisions and micro finance.  1^st opposite party attracted complainant with their false schemes through advertisements, promises and through 2^nd opposite party and others.

                The opposite party for their finance scheme attracted the complainant to invest money in their business stating that it will be grown 10 times after one year.  Complainant was impressed by that scheme and invested Rs.18,700/- on 23-05-06 and it will be matured 10 times after one year i.e., Rs.18,700/- X 10 = Rs.1,87,000/- on          25-05-07 payable by the opposite parties after one year.  Opposite parties received the said amount and issued payment receipts to the complainant.  After the said scheme was matured complainant asked opposite parties about their investments, on that opposite parties are dodging, postponing and bargaining that they will give only principal amount but not 10 times or more times. Thus they prolonged the issue for two to three months.  Hence, complainant suffered mental agony and issued register notice through her counsel and it was received by both opposite parties and kept quite.  Thus the opposite parties committed deficiency of service.  Hence, the complaint.

                Complainant filed IA 363/09 under section 24A of CP Act to condone the delay in filing the complaint and it was allowed and the complaint was registered as CC 55/11.

The 1^st opposite party filed his version, which is in brief as follows:

                The various allegations made in the complaint those that are specifically admitted herein are hereby denied.  The allegations are highly exaggerated and misleading and contrary to the facts.  The complaint is not sustainable in law or on facts.  The complaint does not come under the purview of deficiency of service within the meaning of 12 of Consumer Protection Act and complainant approached this Forum on initial lack of jurisdiction and has no locus standi to agitate her grievance before this Forum.  1^st opposite party is Chairman and Managing Director to the company having its registered office at Hyderabad having jurisdiction at Hyderabad courts and under the condition it is stated that any dispute arising out of business transaction has to be firstly resolved through arbitration and conciliation proceedings.  The complainant filed his complaint without revealing the real facts and without utilizing the options available to her. 

                Complainant joined in the organization of this opposite party to conduct domestic house hold articles selling business along with their organization and receive the profits as per the business norms existing with the company.  The opposite parties business module is only to promote the sales of their shops where from they receive some percentage of commission and therefore, the allegation that the 1^st opposite party is an investment company is nothing but false.  The amount deposited by the complainant is for the purpose of receiving products/goods/domestic articles under product advance coupon, those coupons are issued for either purchasing the products within six months or return the PACs on or before six months or otherwise the deals so ended by complainant with the company shall be cancelled and there is no liability to be attached to the opposite party.   Therefore, under no stretch of imagination, the complainant being literate one having understood the entire business activity of opposite party’s company, alleging that their investment will get ten times profit on single payment is beyond her imagination.

                There is neither deficiency of service or negligence on the part of opposite parties and the complaint is filed misleading the court will false facts.  Therefore, complaint may be dismissed with costs.   

                2^nd opposite party remained exparte.

                Complainant and 1^st opposite party filed their respective affidavits in support of their versions reiterating the same. On behalf of complainant Ex.A1 to A15 are marked.  No documents are marked on behalf of opposite parties.

Now the points for consideration are

1. Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint?
2. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties?
3. To what relief the complainant is entitled to?

POINT No.1

                The case of complainant is that on the representation and advertisement made by opposite parties she has deposited an amount of Rs.18,700/- through 2^nd opposite party on 23-05-06 as opposite party promised to give 10 times of deposited amount by one year i.e., by 25-05-07 and that subsequently opposite parties failed to give 10 times of the deposited amount i.e., Rs.1,87,000/- and thus committed deficiency of service for which she suffered mental agony and claimed the amounts mentioned in the complaint.

                The case of 1^st opposite party is that the complainant joined in the organization of opposite party to conduct domestic house hold articles selling business and receive profits as per business norms, that the amount deposited by complainant is only for receiving products/goods/domestic articles under product advance coupon, which are issued for either purchasing the products within six months or return the said coupons on or before six months or otherwise the deal so entered by complainant with the company will be cancelled and that there is no liability to the opposite party.  But the investment made by the complainant is not for getting 10 times profit on single payment and the allegation that the opposite party is an investment company is nothing but false and that there is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.

                Even though it was averred by 1^st opposite party that any dispute arising out of business transactions has to be firstly solved through arbitration and conciliation proceedings and that the courts at Hyderabad are only having jurisdiction as per the condition of agreement. The 1^st opposite party has not filed the agreement entered between the complainant and opposite party and 1^st opposite party has only filed model agreement and the same cannot be taken into consideration.  Therefore, the said contention of 1^st opposite party cannot be accepted in the absence of any agreement entered between the complainant and opposite parties.  Even assuming that there is an arbitration clause and jurisdiction is restricted to courts at Hyderabad.  The complaint is maintainable in view of the following reported citations:

1. 2007 (3) CPR 113 MPSCDRC, Bhoopal wherein it was held

                “Even when there exists an arbitration clause whether by way of agreement or by provision of law, consumer complaint in relation to deficiency in service would be maintainable.”

1. 2005 (2) CPR 15 Karnataka State Commission, Bangalore wherein it was held

            “Parties restricting jurisdiction to a court not a bar to       jurisdiction of Consumer Forum”

                Therefore, in the absence of any agreement between the parties and in view of the above said decisions, the complaint is maintainable and this Consumer Forum has got jurisdiction to entertain the same.  This issue is answered accordingly.

POINT No.2

                As seen from Ex.A12 pamphlet, the members who joined in the scheme of opposite party need not purchase products or sell the same and they need not join members in the scheme. As seen from Ex.A1 to A11 product advance coupons, complainant paid amounts under Ex.A1 to A11 on different dates to the company of 1^st opposite party and in all complainant paid Rs.18,700/-.  It was noted on the said product advance coupons (Ex.A1 to A11) as follows:

                “Received with thanks from Kola Renuka Devi, the sum of Rs.           only on registering for 10 business houses @ Rs.100/- per business house through DDs             towards product advance coupon against product code number.  Further it was also noted on the face of it that product should be claimed within 6 months from the date of this PCA”.

                Further as per the version of 1^st opposite party complainant joined in the organization of opposite party to conduct domestic house hold articles selling business along their organization and receive profits as per business norms those existing with the company and the opposite parties business module is only to promote the sales of their empanelled shops where from they receive some percentage of commission.  Further it was also mentioned in the version of opposite party that the amount deposited by complainant is for the purpose of receiving the products/goods/domestic articles under product advance coupons, which are issued either for purchasing the products within six months or return the PACs on or before six months.  The said note mentioned on Exs.A1 to A11 and the above version of 1^st opposite party is contrary to the contents of Ex.A12 pamphlet.  Therefore it can be safely concluded that the acts of opposite parties amounts to unfair trade practice.  The allegation of complainant is that she has deposited Rs.18,700/- in different spells under Ex.A1 to A11 as a deposit with 1^st opposite party on the representation of opposite parties that they will pay 10 times to the deposited money after one year.  Complainant failed to prove the said allegation made against the opposite parties to the extent that they promised to pay amount 10 times to the deposit for one year. But Ex.A1 to A11 prove that she has deposited an amount of Rs.18,700/- in different spells.  In view of the facts and circumstances of case as already stated above, the 1^st opposite party company is doing business through 2^nd opposite party by indulging in unfair trade practice.  Therefore, the opposite parties 1 and 2 are liable to refund the amount deposited by complainant together with interest and also liable for compensation. Accordingly this issue is answered in favour of complainant and against opposite parties 1 and 2.

POINT No.3

                Complainant claimed an amount of Rs.1,87,000/- being the matured amount on her deposit and Rs.50,490/- towards interest, Rs.10,000/- towards mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.3000/- towards legal expenses.  As already stated above, the complainant failed to prove the allegation made against the opposite parties that they promised to give 10 times to the deposited amount.  Therefore, she is not entitled for the matured amount claimed by her.  The other amounts claimed by the complainant are too high and they are imaginary.  Therefore, we are of the view that it is just and necessary to direct the opposite parties to pay an amount of Rs.18,700/- (amount deposited by complaint) together with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization and to pay Rs.5000/- towards compensation and Rs.1000/- towards costs of complaint. Accordingly this issue is answered.

                        In the result, the complaint is allowed in part in terms as indicated below:

1. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are hereby directed to pay an amount of Rs.18,700/- (Rupees eighteen thousand seven hundred only) to the complainant together with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of realization.
2. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the complainant towards compensation for the mental agony suffered by her.
3. The opposite parties 1 and 2 are further directed to pay an amount of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only) to the complainant towards the costs of complaint.
4. The above orders shall be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the amount ordered in item No.2 shall also carry interest at 9% p.a. till realization.

Typed to my dictation by the Junior Steno, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 19^th day of September, 2011.    

       MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT

 APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                        DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:         

For opposite parties:  NIL

                                                                                              PRESIDENT