State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Sri.R.Seetharam vs M/S.Zee Entertainment Enterprises ... on 12 December, 2011
Appeal Nos Appeal No. 4985 of 2010 Date of Filing 06/12/2010 Date of Disposal 12/12/2011 BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE. DATED THIS THE 12th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011 PRESENT HONBLE JUSTICE MR.K. RAMANNA : PRESIDENT SRI. A.M. BENNUR : MEMBER
SMT. RAMA ANANTH : MEMBER Appeal No. 4985 OF 2010
1. Sri.R.Seetharam S/o.late.N.S.ramachandraiah, aged about 72 years, R/at L-161, 8th main, Jeevan Bhima Nagar, Bangalore 560 075.
.....Appellant Complainant before the D.F. (By Shri/Smt M/S.Sundaraswamy & Ramdas ) V/s
1. M/s.Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., a company incorporated under the companies Act 1956, having its registered office at 135, Continental Building, Dr.Annie Besant Road, Worli, Mumbai 400 018.
2. M/s Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd., a company incorporated under the Companies Act 1956, having its branch office, No.39, United mansions, 3rd Floor, M.G.Road, Bangalore 560 001.
.....Respondents Ops before the D.F. (By Shri/Smt K.R.Chowla ) :-O R D E R:-
SRI.
A.M. BENNUR, MEMBER This appeal is filed U/s 15 of the C.P Act 1986 by the complainant in complaint No.1453/2009 on the file of I Addl. District Consumer Forum, Bangalore being aggrieved with the order dated 03/11/2010.
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:
OP telecasted the game show by name Kam Ya Zyaada in their channel network between 13-12-2005 and 01-05-2006. The concept of the game show was such the participants are required to call the number 1901 425 7575 specified by the OP and answer the questions, if the answers are correct they will get the loyalty points. The person who accumulates maximum loyalty points would get a cash prize of Rs.25,00,000/- second would get Rs.10,00,000/- and 10 consolation prizes of Rs.1,00,000/- each. Complainant took part in the said game show during 27/01/2006 to 20/04/2006. According to him he had accumulated 20000 loyalty points. He stood first as such he is entitled the prize money of Rs.25,00,000/-.
Unfortunately, OP took the game show off-air all of a sudden in April-2006 without due notice. When complainant contacted the OP he was promised that show will resume shortly but thereafter he did not receive any communication. The repeated requests and demands made by the complainant by making telephone calls, sending e-mail and other correspondence went in futile. Then he got issued legal notice there was no proper response.
Then he got issued legal notice there was no proper response. Thus, he felt deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP.
Hence, he filed the complaint.
3. On appearance OP filed the version denying all the allegations made by the complainant in to-to. According to OP complaint is bound by the terms and conditions prescribed therein. OP has retained the rights either to continue or discontinue the said programme. Rule 53 speaks to the said fact. Complainant might have sent some information to the wrong e-mail not that of OP. Due to some unavoidable circumstances, the said show was taken off-air in April 2006 after due notice to the participants. No fault lies with the Ops. Complainant kept mum since April 2006 and thereafter for the first time caused the legal notice belatedly that too on 24/09/2008 then field the complaint. So the complaint is barred by time. The other averments made in the complaint are baseless. Complaint is devoid of merit. Among these grounds OP prayed for the dismissal of the complaint.
4. After appearance the litigating parties filed their affidavit evidence and produced some documents and then the after hearing the arguments, the D.F. was again pleased to dismiss the said complaint vide its order dated 03/11/2010. Being aggrieved by the same, now the complainant has come up with this appeal on the following grounds:-
That the D.F. has not appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case in a proper and perspective manner. The conclusions arrived at findings recorded reasons assigned are all opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. Though complainant is able to establish that he is a consumer as defined under the Act and even though OP has not raised the said contention in their version but still D.F. has arbitrarily raised point No.1 for the consideration whether complainant is a consumer or not which is unjust and improper. In the earlier order which was challenged by the complainant before this Commission at appeal No.4263/2009, nowhere D.F. has observed that the complainant is not a consumer, whereas it dismissed the complaint on the point of limitation and that order was set-aside by this Commission in the appeal referred to above, but still after the remand the D.F. has erroneously held that the complainant is not a consumer. If the said order is not set-aside, it is the OP/appellant who will be put to greater hardship and prejudice. Accordingly prayed for allowing the appeal.
5. Heard the arguments.
6. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this appeal are as under:
1.
Whether the impugned order under appeal is unjust and improper?
2. If so, whether it calls for the interference from this commission?
3. what order?
7. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties both oral and documentary evidence, impugned order under appeal, grounds urged in the appeal memo and the arguments advanced. In view of the reasons given by us in the following paragraphs, our findings on Point Nos. 1 & 2 are in the Affirmative and on Point No.3 as per the final order:-
:-REASONS:-
8. It is specifically contended by the complainant that he availed the service of the OP and he being lured away with the programme hoisted by the OP, wherein certain questions were asked and he answered all the questions and thereby gained the points, he was expecting prize money. For making calls he has spent a lot. There is an understanding and tie up between the OP and the BSNL as well as MTNL.
Complainant has made more than 6158 calls to answer the said questions and to know the final result and whatever the income BSNL has got due to the telephone calls and messages is shared by the Ops. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that the complainant is a Consumer as defined under the Act.
9. In this context we rely on a decision of the Honble National Commission passed in Consumer complaint No.83/2007, wherein the complaint is filed against the Star Plus T.V. In that complaint also the programme was KBC Kaun Banega Crorepati and this present programme is Kam Ya Zyaada. The allegations made therein and the relief sought therein are almost identical. The Honble National Commission was pleased to hold that complainant in such nature of dispute are the consumers. Without discussing much about the other aspect of the matter and the merits and demerits of the case, we are of the view that the D.F. committed an error in dismissing the complaint alleging that complainant is not a consumer. In addition to that when we are go through the version, nowhere in the version OP raised objection stating that complainant is not a consumer. With all that the D.F. somehow raised the point for consideration i.e., point No.1 which is in our view is unjust and improper.
10. Once the said complaint was dismissed on the point of limitation vide order dated 19/11/2009 complainant preferred an appeal before this commission at appeal No.4263/2009. The said appeal came to be allowed on 30/08/2010 and the order was set-aside and the matter was remanded back to decide the whole issue on merit. In the said earlier order nowhere the D.F. has observed that complainant is not a consumer. It decided the matter only on the point of limitation. Under such circumstances, what was the reason for the D.F. to raise the new issue without there being a pleading is not known. This is a second round of litigation. Unnecessarily complainant is forced to file the repeated appeals.
11. The appellant is able to show before this Commission that the impugned order is erroneous suffers from legal infirmity unsustainable in law. It also suffers from any error apparent on the face of record requiring our interference. We find some illegality and irregularity committed by the D.F. in dismissing the said complaint vide impugned order. There is a merit in the appeal. Accordingly we answer point Nos. 1 & 2 and proceed to pass the following:-
:-ORDER:-
The appeal is allowed.
The impugned order under appeal passed by the D.F. dated 03/11/2010 in complaint No.1453/2009 is hereby set-aside.
The matter is remanded back to the D.F. to decide the complaint on merit in view of the observations made by this Commission in the body of the order, wherein we are of the view that complainant is the consumer.
The D.F. to give reasonable opportunity to both the litigating parties to put forth their case on merit and dispose off the same in accordance with law.
As far as this appeal is concerned no order as to costs.
MEMBER PRESIDENT MEMBER TSS**