O R D E R
The present complaint case has been brought by the complainant Kailash Kumar Patwari against the Opposite Parties i.e.(i) the Sector worker, Sahara India Pariwar, Bhagalpur Road, Dumka (ii) The Manager, Sahara India (R) agent to Sahara India commercial Corporation Ltd, Lucknow and (iii) Sahara India Pariwar, Kortavya council Lucknow u/s-12 of the of the Consumer Protection Act,1986, for illegally and arbitrarily not paying the 2nd bumper prize of 10% extra benefit and fifth bumper Prize of 3%extra benefit respectively per year on coupon value of Rs.90,000/-(Ninety thousand) only for the remaining period 10 years and there by committing negligency and deficiency in service as well as deceptive trade practice. The complainant has claimed Principal amount of Rs.96,000/-(Ninety six thousand), compensation of Rs.25,000/-and cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/-against the Opposite Parties .
2.The brief facts of the case as revealed from the complaint petition and the documents annexed there in are as follows:-
That on 14.02.2014 the complainant invested Rs.90,000/-(Ninety thousand)in the Opposite Party Company under Silver Year Labh Yojna (S.Y.L.Y) for 10 years by depositing the said amount in A/C No.14829202132 and against this investment the Opposite parties issued Passbook- cum-certificate to the complainant. On 25.05.2005 the Opposite parties informed the complainant about wining of second bumper prize of 10% extra benefit per year on coupon value i.e. the investment amount of Rs.90,000/-(Ninety thousand) for the remaining period of 10 years and there after on 18.01.2007 the Opposite parties again informed the complainant about wining fifth prize of 3% extra benefit per year on coupon value i.e. the investment of Rs.90,000/- for the remaining period of 10 years.
The further case of the complainant is that at the time of payment of credit value of the advance payment, the O.P’s denied to pay the aforesaid Prizes of extra benefit of 10% and 3% respectively to the complainant. Thereupon, on 21.02.2014 the complainant submitted an application to O.P.no-1 claiming his prize of extra benefits of 10% and 3% of the coupon value i.e. Rs.90,000/- and thereafter the complainant orally requested O.P.No-1 to satisfy his claim but the Opposite Parties did not pay any attention towards payment of the complainants claim, hence, lastly 24.03.2014 the complainant sent Pleader’s Notice through his lawyer for recovery of extra benefits but the Opposite Parties did not reply to the said notice.
The further case of the complainant is that he is entitled to get 10% extra benefit per year on coupon value i.e. the investment of Rs.90,000/-(Ninety thousand) for the remaining value of 10 years, which comes to Rs.78,000/- in lump sum amount and further entitled to get 3% extra benefit per year on coupon value i.e. the investment amount of Rs.90,000/-(Ninety thousand) for the remaining period of 10 years which comes to Rs.18,900/- and in total amount comes to Rs.78,000+18900=96,900/- which is payable to the complainant. It is alleged that by the depriving from winning prize by the opposite parties amounted to deceptive trade practices, gross negligence as well as deficiency in service which caused the complainant immense mental agony and huge financial loss and therefore, the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs as mentioned above Lastly, having no alternative the complainant field this case for redressal of his grievance on 08.05.2014 before this forum.
3.Having recieved the notices the Opposite Parties appeared on 12.07.2014 and filed joint written statement on 16.08.2014.
4.The Opposite Parties in their written statement besides taking preliminary objections such as non maintainability of the case as the complainant is not a consumer of O.P’s with regard to prize own by him lucky draw besides the parties did not enter in to any agreement to provide any prize to the complainant nor charged any fee for it, further the case is hit by Section24A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 which provides limitation period of two years from the date on which the cause of action arises, whereas, the present case was filed after the period of 08 years and 07 years respectively from the date of draw of lots and letter of intimation on 16.08.2005and 18.01.2007, has admitted that the complainant with intent to purchase product/housing unit or avil services of O.P’s made an advance booking under Silver Year Labh Yojna vide a/c/control no.14829202132 on 14.02.2014 at branch office, Dumka. It has asserted that the benefit coupon given to the complainant was to use under the term and conditions of the Sales Promotional scheme but cannot be provided with cash against the said benefit coupon where as the complainant demanded cash against the coupon which could not be satisfied .It has further stated that the company introduced a Sales Promotion Scheme for providing extra facilities to the advance booking holder and for that no charge was taken and it has to be utilized in purchase of the products and the services under the term and conditions of Sales Promotion Scheme. The amount of coupon/advice is not payable in cash and as the complainant failed to comply with the term and condition of Sales Promotion Scheme, not entitled to get benefit of Prize a prayed and therefore, the answering Opposite Parties never made any deficiency in service and no cause of action arisen against them and hence prayed to dismiss case.
5.We have heard the argument of the parties and gone through the record along with the material and documents annexed there in.
6. The complainant has adduced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of the case whereas O.P’s have not adduced any kind of evidence. .The complainant has filed affidivated statement of his own asC.W.no.-1 Kailash Kumar Patwari and has adduced the following documentary evidence :-
Ext-1.Photocopy of Passbook -cum-certificate of account /control no.14829202132dt.14.02.2004;
Ext-2.Photocopy of information letter dated.25.05.2005 for winning
of 2nd bumper prize of 10% extra benefit per year on coupon
bearing no.43400694070;
Extr-3.Photocopy of information letter dated 18.02.2007 W/L bearing
No.53401177075 for winning of fifth prize of 3% extra benefit
per year;
Ext-4.Photocopy of complainants letter dated 21.02.2014 to opposite
party / O.P.no-1 about issuing advice for payment of extra
benefits;
Ext-5.Carban copy of Pleaders notice dated- 24.03.2014;
Ext-6.Original three postal receipts about sending Pleader notices.
7. The only point for discussion is whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs claimed?
F I N D I N G S
8. The admitted position of this case is that complainant invested Rs.90,000/-(Ninety thousand) only in the opposite parties/ company under Silver Year Labh Yojna for 10 years by depositing the said amount in control/account no.14829202132 on 14.02.2004. It is also the admitted case that on 25.05.2005 the O.P’s informed the complainant about winning of 2nd bumper prize of 10%extra benefit per year on the coupon value i.e. Rs.90,000/-for the remaining period 10 years and also on 18.01.2007 the O.P’s informed the complainant about winning of fifth bumper prize of 3% extra benefit per year on the coupon value of Rs.90,000/= for the remaining period 10 Years.
The Complainant has at alleged that at the time of the payment of the credit value of the advance amount the O.P’s denied to pay the aforesaid winning prizes of extra benefits of 10% and 3% respectively on the coupon value of Rs.90,000/-to the complainant, thereupon, complainant sent an application to O.P.no-1 on 21.02.2014 claiming his aforesaid prizes of extra benefits of coupon value and also made oral request on several occasion but opposite parties did not pay his claim amount.
The Opposite Parties have taken stands that the Complainant has already received the Payment of advance amount along with accrued interest, of the account under question opened counter No.14829202132 on 05.03.2014 in full settlement of the account against the investment made in the Company.The O.P’s Company have neither taken any charge for providing extra benefits from the complainant nor promised to provide him any coupon prize against advance booking hence, complainant not entitled to get cash against benefit coupons. The O.P’s had informed the complainant that the benefit coupon can only be used as per the terms and condition of the Sales Promotion Scheme by purchasing Products/Services scheme and cannot provide with cash against the said benefit coupon but the complainant demanded cash payment to which he was not entitled.
C.W-1 Kailash Kumar Patwari, the complainant himself in his affidavited statement has fully supported his case by making statement that on 14.02.2014 he invested Rs.90,000/- Silver Year Labh Yojana of the O.P’s company for 10 years by depositing the amount in A/C no.14829202132 and against the said investment O.P’s issued passbook-cum-certificate to him (Ext.1). He has further stated that on 25.05.2005 O.P’s informed him that he has won 2nd bumper prize of 10%extra benefit per year on his invested amount of Rs.90,000/- for the remaining prize of 10 years and thereafter on 18.01.2007 the O.P’s again informed him about winning fifth prize of extra benefit per year on the invested amount Rs.90,000/-(Ninety thousand) for the remaining period 10 years. He has further stated after completion of 10 years when the invested amount got matured then at the time of payment of maturity value the company denied to pay the prize the extra benefits of 10% and 3% of the coupon value and he also made request on several occasions to the O.P’s company and send Pleader notices through his lawyer for cash payment of prizes of extra benefits but the O.P’s did not respond . He has further stated that the O.P’s Company never informed him that against the bumper prizes the company would provide any product or services and would not pay cash under the scheme and hence O.P’s company adopted deceptive trade practices and thereby caused financial loss and agony to him. This witness has fully proved his case and his unrebutted statement on oath is taken to be true.
The complainant has filed photocopy of Passbook-cum-certificate of his office account as Ext2. Photocopy of information letter dated 25.05.2005for winning of 2nd bumper prize of 10% extra benefit per year as Ext.2 and another photocopy of information letter dated 18.01.2007 for winning of fifth prize of 3% extra benefit per year as Ext.3 however from persual of these documents it is apparent that it is no where mentioned in these documents that the extra benefits prize could be only used to purchase either product or take services of opposite parties company,besides there appears no any term and conditions of Sales Promotion Scheme about extra bumper prize in the Passbook-cum certificate (Ext-1) issued by the opposite party. Therefore assertion of the opposite parties Company that the demand of the complainant is against the terms of conditions of Sales Promotion Scheme and complainant not entitled to get cash on the bumber prizes is totally wrong and against the documents of the company. Therefore claim of O.P’s company is not acceptable.
9.It has been asserted by the opposite parties in their written statement that company have not taken any charge against the lucky draws hence complainant not entitled to be covered under the category of consumer u/s (1)&2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 In support of its claim relied upon a case law i.e. Madhya Pradesh Shasan Vs. Romesh Jojodia &Ors reported in 1(1999)CPJ703. In the said case law the Hon’ble M.P.S.C.D.R.C, Bhopal held “The consumer, who is a prize winner of the lottery ticket cannot be termed as a purchaser of goods for consideration and thus could not be a consumer.
But,we are of the view that this case law is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the present case,the bumper prize was not an open scheme for general mass but it was only for among and within the investors and the O.P’s by affording lucky bumper prize had allured the investors with this extra benefit scheme for investing in “SYLY” therefore the claim of the O.P’s is unacceptable.
10.The another point raised by the O.P’s in their written statement is that the complainant has neither paid nor promised to pay any amount for the prizes won by him, hence, the complainant is not a consumer of the O.P’s in view of section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act,1986. In support of their claim relied upon a case law i.e. M/S Sahara India and another Vs. Kumar Manisha Thakur decided vide Revision petition No.40/2013 dated 23.07.2013 by the Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum New Delhi.
On the other hand learned counsel for the complainant has relied upon a case law reported in 2018(1) CPR 264(N.C) in case of Director common Area and others Vs. Nemichand Gupta and in that case Hon’ble National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi held that the complainant by participating in lucky draw and being declared successful in the same, does fall under the category of consumer”. This case law support the facts of the present case.
Therefore, we are the view that the complainant is a consumer in view of section 2(1)(d) of the C.P.Act1986,as far as the lucky draw extra benefit of 10% and 3% on the invested amount is concerned Thus, the claim of O.P’s on this point also is not acceptable.
11.The opposite parties has also further claimed in their written statement that the present Complaint case is barred by Sec-24A of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 as the case filed on 08.05.2014 i.e. after a period a period more then 8/7 years of from the date of draw of extra bumper prizes and also from the date of letter of intimation dated 16.08.2005 and 18.01.2007 sent to the complainant .We are of the view that claim of the opposite parties is not correct because the extra benefit of 10%and 3% were to be paid at the time of final payment dated 05.03.2014 and the case has been filed on 07.05.2014 and hence this case well within the statutory period of limitation and not barred under Sec-24A of the Consumer Protection Act1986. Besides it is evidence from Ext.4 and Ext.5 i.e. complainant letter demanding issuance of advice of extra benefits and the pleaders notice for payment of extra benefit Cash but the O.P’s did not reply to the said letters of the complainant about issuing of advice of benefit coupon and also payment of extra benefit as claimed in the Pleader notice. Therefore, it is proved that the O.P’s has no valid and genuine ground to refuse the claim of the complainant.
12.Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts, evidence and principal of law settled by the Hon’ble courts we are of the view that the complainant is entitled to get 10% and 3%extra benefits per year on coupon value i.e. invested amount Rs.90,000/- for the remaining period 10 years, which in total comes to Rs.96,900/-and compensation for the loss and agony Rs.10,000/- and cost of litigation Rs.5,000/-.We also of the view that non payment of complainants valid and genuine claim by the O.P’s company amounted to deceptive trade practices, negligency and deficiency in service. Therefore O.P’s company liable to pay the awarded amount.
In the result,
O R D E R E D
That the complainant case be and the same is allowed on contest with cost against Opposite Parties Sahara India Pariwar Company. The Opposite Parties company are directed to make payment of Rs.96,900/-(Ninety six thousand nine hundred) as the principal amount along with interest of @ 10% p.a. from the date of maturity of extra benefits prizes till its payment, they are further directed to make payment of Rs.10,000/_(Ten thousand) towards compensation and Rs.5,000/-(Five thousand)as towards cost of litigation to the complainant.
The order must be complied within one month from the date of receipt of this order failing which necessary action as contemplated u/s-25&27 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 shall be initialed against the Opposite Parties.
The office is directed to furnished copy of this order to the parties or their advocates free of cost.
The case, thus stands decided, accordingly.
