Back
ORISSA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CUTTACK
Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra,
President; Dr. R.N. Panigrahi & Mrs. J. Patnaik, Members
SUDERSHAN NAIK—Complainant
versus
SANTOSH KUMAR GIRI & ANOTHER—Opp. Parties
C.D. Appeal No. 37 of 1992—Decided on 3.4.1993
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Complainant : In person.
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. Bijay K. Patnaik, Advocate.
The complainant must prove the alleged forgery, and the consumer status of the complainant and the nature of the service provided must be determined to assess the deficiency in service and negligence by the opposite parties.
Headnote:
Lucky Draw Scheme - Consumer Dispute - The court set aside the previous order and remitted the complaint back to the District Forum for fresh consideration, directing both parties to adduce further materials. The court emphasized the need for the complainant to prove the alleged forgery and for the District Forum to determine the consumer status of the complainant and whether the lucky draw scheme constituted a service, in order to assess the deficiency in service and negligence by the opposite parties.
Fact of the Case:
Complainant participated in a lucky draw scheme, claiming to have paid the required instalments but was not considered for the prize. The District Forum dismissed the complaint based on adverse inference due to the complainant's failure to produce the original lucky draw ticket.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order and remitting the complaint back to the District Forum for fresh consideration, with directions for both parties to adduce further materials. The complainant was directed to issue notice to the opposite parties at his cost, failing which the complaint would stand dismissed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged deficiency in service by the opposite parties in not considering the complainant for the prize in the lucky draw scheme, and the failure of the complainant to produce the original lucky draw ticket before the District Forum.
Ratio Decidendi: The complainant must prove the alleged forgery, and the District Forum must determine the consumer status of the complainant and whether the lucky draw scheme constituted a service, in order to assess the deficiency in service and negligence by the opposite parties.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the complainant was directed to take steps for the issue of notice to the opposite parties at his cost. Failure to do so within one month would result in the dismissal of the complaint.
Mr. Justice S.C. Mohapatra, President— Complainant is appellant. His case is that opposite parties advertised for a lucky draw scheme. Complainant purchased a ticket of the draw bearing No. 303. Under the said scheme each ticket holder is to pay 20 instalments at the rate of Rs. 30/-per ticket and there would be 20 lucky draws per ticket. Complainant paid three monthly instalments. Thereafter he paid Rs. 330/- for another 11 instalments. He was, therefore, to be considered for the 13th draw where he would have been titled to the prize which is a two wheeler, Bajaj M.80. opposite parties did not consider the ticket of the complainant in the 13th draw which is a deficiency in service.
2. Opposite parties 1 & 2 have stated their cases jointly. Opposite party No.3 had not stated any case. The case of opposite parties 1 & 2 is that only Rs. 30/- was paid which was subsequently forged to make it Rs. 330/- Complainant not having paid Rs. 330/- was not entitled for consideration.
3. On being called upon to produce the original lucky draw ticket by the District Forum to verify the correctness of the allegations, complainant filed a xerox copy of the same in another consumer dispute which is still pending. The opposite parties have produced the accounts register maintained by them. The District Forum drew adverse inference against complainant for not producing the original lucky ticket and did not accept the accounts register to have been properly maintained. However, the District Forum dismissed the complaint on the basis of adverse inference against which this appeal has been preferred.
4. Complainant has produced the original lucky draw ticket before this Commission along with the memorandum of appeal. To consider whether Rs. 330/- has been paid as claimed by the complainant or paying Rs. 30/- the entry has been forged as claimed by opposite parties further materials are necessary specially when the accounts register maintained by opposite parties has been held not to be properly maintained. Accordingly, the order is set aside, complaint is remitted back to the District Forum for fresh consideration giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce further materials if so advised keeping in mind that a person who claims an entry to be forged is to prove the same. District Forum is also required to consider whether complainant is a consumer and whether the lucky draw scheme is a service rendered. On the basis of findings of these questions, it is to be considered whether there is deficiency in service and the same is on account of negligence in duty by opposite parties.
5. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal is allowed. Since the complainant is getting the benefit, he shall take steps for issue of notice to the opposite parties afresh at his cost. If no step is taken within one month from the date of receipt the records, complaint shall stand dismissed.
Appeal allowed.
__
