RAAJ SATT TV CLUB vs S.DHANASEKHAR

THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 30th Day of December, 1997 in O.P. No. 168/1997 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Erode.

THE appellant is the opposite party while the respondent is the complainant. Short facts may be related in order to understand the crux of the issue arising for consideration in this action. The complainant, by name one Dhanasekhar, is residing at Door No. 20, V.V.C.R. Nagar, Erode-638001. The opposite party is one Raaj Satt T.V. Club, located at 23, 1st Avenue, Chockalingam Street, Gopalapuram, Chennai-600086.

Advertisements were made in Raaj TV as respects the benefits to be availed of by a person becoming a member of the opposite party club by remitttance of the necessary subscription of Rs. 200/- by way of Demand Draft. Initially, the benefits were to be availed of by a person becoming the member of the club on or before 31.1.1997. Subsequently, the scheme was extended upto 18.2.1997.

THE benefits to be availed of by a person becoming the member of the club of the opposite party are as follows: (i) Issuance of Membership Card. (ii) Concession Coupons. (iii) Names of Institutions wherefrom the Member of the Club could purchase articles at discounted rates. (iv) Gift articles. (v) Giving of Motorola Bravo Instinct Coloured Numeric Pager from Modi Page, absolutely free.

The complainant took a draft for Rs. 200/- on 29.1.1997 from the State Bank of India and sent the same to the opposite party by Professional Courier Service. The demand draft so taken was received by the opposite party before the targeted date. Despite the receipt of the membership fee by way of a demand draft, the opposite party did not honour its commitment as advertised in Raaj TV. The complainant, it appears, contacted the opposite party over telephone and by means of communication and all these things, yielded no results.

IN such a backdrop and setting, the complainant knocked at the doors of the Forum below alleging deficiency in service and for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint. The opposite party in pith and substance contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part. As a matter of fact, the membership card had been sent to the complainant. However, the membership card so sent to the complainant did not reach his hands as a consequence of non-effecting of the delivery of the communication sent to him. It is for the complainant to come with the membership card and collect the gift items as advertised in the TV. The complaint as such is liable to be dismissed. The Forum below after taking into consideration the materials placed on record, recorded a finding that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and consequently directed opposite party to issue to the complainant, (i) membership card; (ii) concession coupons; (iii) names of institutions wherefrom the member of the club could purchase articles at discounted rates along with its details; (iv) gift articles; and (v) Motorola Bravo Instinct Coloured Numeric Pager from Modi Page freely and that apart, the Forum below also directed the opposite party to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 200/- towards costs.

AGGRIEVED by the orders as above, the opposite party resorted to the present action by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely, learned Counsels M/s. R. Krishnaswami and C. Ramesh.

ON service of process, the respondent/complainant also entered appearance through a Counsel of his choice namely, learned Counsel Mr. D. Krishnakumar. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. C. Balaji representing learned Counsel M/s. R. Krishnaswami and C. Ramesh appearing for the appellant/opposite party and learned Counsel Mr. K.S. Jayaganesan representing learned Counsel Mr. D. Krishnakumar appearing for the respondent/complainant.

Even at the outset we may point out that there are absolutely no merits in this appeal. There is no pale of controversy that the advertisement as suggested by the complainant had been made by the opposite party by means of a telecast in Raaj TV. Yet another fact about which there is no dispute is that the complainant remitted a sum of Rs. 200/- by way of a Demand Draft on 29.1.1997 to the opposite party in order to become a member of the club of the opposite party (vide Ex. A-1). The further fact about which there cannot be any dispute is that the membership fee sent by way of a Demand Draft by the complainant to the opposite party had been received by them before the targeted date as announced (vide Ex. A-2). It is also not dipsuted by the opposite party that they had received the membership fee before the targeted date announced by them. But what is contended by them is that the membership card had been sent through professional couriers to the complainant and the same had been returned without the same being served on the complainant. Such being the case, the plea so taken in the version has been taken for the purpose of defence and nothing further. The other contention of the opposite party that it is for the complainant to come to the opposite party along with the membership card and claim the gift articles and in view of the fact that the complainant did not come to the opposite party with the membership card, he was unable to be given all the gift articles and other concessions as announced by them and such being the case, they would say, they cannot be mulcted with liability for the deficiency in service. To such sort of a contention, we are unable to affix our seal of approval on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. Once an advertisement is made by the opposite party that they would be giving the gift articles and other concessions to any person like the complainant became a member of the opposite party club, it is incumbent upon them to provide all the gift articles and other concessions to a member like the complainant even without a demand from the member like the complainant. Admittedly, in the case on hand, the gift articles and other concessions had not been provided to the complainant by the opposite party as stated by them in advertisement. This sort of an act on the part of the opposite party would definitely tantamount to deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, the directions issued by the Forum below to the opposite party for delivering the gift articles and other concessions extended cannot at all be found fault with. This apart, the Forum below after all awarded costs as minimal sum of Rs. 200/- to be paid by the opposite party to the complainant, which, we feel, is rather reasonable not calling for interference on the facts and in the circumstances of the case.

IN fine, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. We, however, make no order as to costs on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. We, however, make it crystal clear that the order of the Forum below as confirmed by us is required to be complied with by the opposite party within a month from the date of receipt of our order, or otherwise it would be perfectly open to the complainant to invoke jurisdiction of Section 27 of the Act, 1986. Appeal dismissed.