By Sri. M.S. Sasidharan, Member:
The complainant’s case is as follows: The respondents advertised a special offer named money back scheme by which the respondents will repay a sum of Rs.14,990/- on completing six years to anyone who purchased a Videocon Colour Television. The complainant purchased a Videocon Bazooka colour television under the scheme for an amount of Rs.19,490/- on 17.7.98 from the 3rd respondent. The cost of television was Rs.14,490/- and he paid rs.5000/- as security deposit under the money back scheme. On completing six years the complainant contacted the 2nd and 3rd respondents. But the money has not been repaid. On 6.9.04 a lawyer notice was issued to the 2nd and 3rd respondents. The 3rd respondents has only replied stating that he is only a dealer of the said product and the scheme regarding special offer was introduced by the Videocon International Ltd. Since all the respondents are jointly and severally liable for the payment the complaint is filed.
2. The 2nd respondent filed a counter to the following effect. It is admitted that there was a scheme offered by the company named money back scheme. But the complainant has never approached the respondent with the original receipt to redeem the security deposit. Hence there is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd respondent.
3. The version filed by the 3rd respondent is as follows. The 3rd respondent has not made any advertisement as alleged. The complainant has purchased a videocon colour television on 17.7.98 from the 3rd respondent who is only a dealer of the first and second respondent. The 3rd respondent is not liable to pay back the amount since the money back scheme was offered by the Videocon International Ltd. Company.
4. The points for consideration are:
(1) Whether the complainant is entitled to get back the amount
he claimed?
(2) Other reliefs and costs.
5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P6 and oral evidence of PW1. No evidence has been adduced by the respondents.
6. Points: The complainant’s definite case is that he has purchased a Videocon Bazooka colour television for Rs.14,990/- on 17.7.98 from the 3rd respondent under the money back scheme offered by the respondents. He has also paid Rs.5000/- as security deposit under the said scheme. As per this scheme he is entitled to get back Rs.14,990/- on completing six years. But the amount has not been repaid to him. Neither the 2nd respondent nor the 3rd respondent has disputed the purchase or the offer. The 2nd respondent has stated that the complainant has not approached them with the original receipt to redeem the security deposit. At the same time the 3rd respondent has stated that he is only a dealer of the 2nd respondent company. So he is not liable to pay back the money as offered. The complainant has issued a lawyer notice as there was delay in getting the money due to him. The 2nd respondent ought to reply to the notice and asked him to furnish the original receipt and also to fulfill other formalities stipulated under the scheme. Even though the 3rd respondent is only the dealer of the company he is also responsible to repay the amount offered. He should have persuaded the complainant as well as others who purchased TV under the said scheme to comply the formalities to get back the amount without delay. Exts. P1 to P3 clearly proved that the purchase was made under the money back scheme and hence the complainant is entitled to get back Rs.14,990/- on completing six years of purchase.
6. In the result, the complaint is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs.14,990/- (Rupees fourteen thousand nine hundred and ninety only) and Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred only) as compensation and costs Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred only) within one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 7th day of December 2010.
