State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Tulsi Ram Alias Nikku vs Prem Lakhera & Others on 4 August, 2010
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA PANCHKULA First Appeal No.2547 of 2005 Date of Institution: 19.12.2005 Date of Decision: 04.08.2010 Tulsi Ram alias Nikku son of Shri Amar Chand r/o Mohalla Bas Sitab Rai, Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari. Appellant/Complainant Versus 1. Prem Lakhera. 2. Krishan Lakhera 3 Shiv Lakhera 4 Ashok Lakhera 5 Raj Kumar Lakhera, all sons of Shri Deen Dayal Lakhera, residents of Punjabi Market Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari. ..Respondents-Opp. Parties BEFORE: Honble Mr.Justice R.S.Madan, President. Dr.Rekha Sharma, Member. Sh.Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member. For the Parties: Mr.R.P.Yadav Advocate for the Appellant. None for the Respondents-opposite parties. ORDER
JUSTICE R.S.MADAN PRESIDENT:
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 20.09.2005 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Rewari whereby the complaint filed by the appellant-complainant against the respondents-opposite parties for committing fraud by floating a lucky draw scheme, has been dismissed on the ground that the controversy involved between the parties is not a consumer dispute.
Heard.
It is the case of the complainant that the opposite parties have floated 7 Lucky Draw scheme by attracting various persons for depositing Rs.1000/- per head every month for a period of 30 month. According to complainant he had also purchased the Lucky Draw Card No.130 and deposited Rs.60,000/- with the opposite parties as per the terms of the lucky draw scheme but the opposite parties did not pay the amount of Rs.64000/- after the expiry of 48 months as was assured by the opposite parties to the complainant. Alleging it a case of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice the complainant had filed the present complaint.
Having taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and the finding recorded by the District Forum we hardly find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. It is a clear cut case of fraud and the controversy involved between the parties amounts to commission of criminal offence which required elaborate evidence and detailed discussions and therefore, the present complaint cannot be decided in a summary manner under the Consumer Protection Act. The Criminal/Civil Court has jurisdiction to solve the controversy involved in this case.
No interference with the impugned order is made out.
No merit. Dismissed.
4th Aug, 2010 Justice R.S.Madan President Dr.Rekha Sharma, Member Diwan Singh Chauhan, Member.