IMPORTANT POINT
Where cable connection in an NRI Scheme was offered to be provided within three months of remittance of amount failing service provider would pay interest then consumer complaint even filed in 2002 and amount had been deposited in 1994 and connection was not provided, complaint would not be barred by limitation.

K.R. Udayabhanu, President—The appellant is the 1st opposite party, the Managing Director of Asianet Satellite Communications Ltd. who is under orders to pay a sum of Rs. 75,000 as compensation and to return $ 300 with 12% interest from 5.7.1994 after deducting Rs. 4,200 already paid towards interest and also to pay cost of Rs. 500 and also interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of compensation.

2. The grievance of the complainant is that he had paid a sum of $ 300 on 5.3.1994 believing the offer of the appellant vide NRI Privilege Connection Scheme as per which on remittance of the amount by the NRIs cable connection will be given to the residence of the person or his nominee. The complainant is the power of attorney holder of his son who was working abroad. It is the case of the complainant that after receipt of the amount cable connection was not given to his residence till the date of the complaint. He has sought for a compensation of Rs. 5,00,000.

3. On the other hand, the opposite parties had contended that the complaint is barred by limitation and that the scheme was launched confining to the municipal area of Chengannur. It is also contended that the complainant’s son misguided them that his residence is within the area of Chengannur Municipality. Subsequently it was found that he is residing far away from Chengannur Municipality.

4. Complainant is examined as PW1 and Exts. P1 to P6 documents were marked. Ext. P3 is the receipt for payment of $ 300. Exts. P 1 and P5 are the brochures of the scheme as per which the connection is offered on payment of the amount in foreign currency. In Ext. P1 brochure the appellant has undertaken to pay interest on FCNRI (foreign currency) from the 4th month till the actual date of connection. It is also seen from the above brochure that a delegation of the Asianet had gone to Middle East countries to canvas deposits.

5. We find that the opposite party has not adduced any evidence to prove that the complainant is residing far away from Chengannur Municipality. The evidence of PW1 could not be discredited in the cross-examination.

6. Further the contention of the appellant that the son of the complainant had misled the opposite parties by giving his address as within the municipal limits is disproved from the recitals in Ext. P P6 receipt wherein the address given is the same address of the complainant as in the complaint filed. As already noted above no evidence was adduced by the opposite parties to support the above version. Evidently from the date of receipt of the amount i.e. 5.3.1994 till the period of filing of the complaint i.e.; in 2002 no cable connection has been provided to the complainant. In the circumstances, we find that the particular offer is devoid of bona fides. The scheme ought to have been floated after making arrangements to provide the connection. Evidently there was no infrastructure to connect the cable in complainant’s area. The fact that for about 8 years the complainant could not be provided with cable connection would clearly show that there was no bona fides in the offer made. The undertaking in the brochure that if connection could not be provided within 3 months interest would be paid on the amount received would clearly give rise to an expectation that the cable connection would be provided at least within 3 months. We find that the above type of activity really amounts to unfair trade practice which is sought to be prohibited by the statute i.e. the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

7. In the circumstances the contention of the appellant that the proceedings is barred by limitation which according to the counsel for the appellant starts from the expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the amount can not be upheld. The appellant had kept the expectation of the complainant alive till the date of filing of the complaint or some proximate period before the date of filing of the complaint. We find that the contention that the complaint is ba