K. V. VENKATA RAJU Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR, AUTO CARS COMPOUND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being not satisfied with the order dated 29.03.2006 passed in C. D. 1195/2004 only against OP 5 directing for payment of the amount, this appeal is filed for passing an order against all the respondents/Opposite parties fastening joint and several liability on them.

(2.) The facts of the case disclose that the complainant had purchased Videocon colour T. V. set under money back scheme for Rs.13,990/- from the 5th Opposite party. As per the terms of the Scheme, the complainant had to get back Rs.8,990/- after expiry of 5 years from the date of security deposit which was made on 30.07.1998. The complainant addressed a letter to opposite parties 1 to 5 reminding them to refund the amount under money back scheme. 6th Respondent/OP. 6 saying that his name did not list in the scheme and on that a legal notice dated 12.8.2004 was sent calling upon the opposite parties for refund of the assured amount of Rs.8,990/- being the security deposit made by him. The act or omission would amounts to deficiency in service for which they are liable to pay it.

(3.) Notices were sent through registered post to opposite parties 1 to 6. Vakalat was filed for opposite parties. Counter affidavit of OP 5 was filed denying the allegations. It is stated that Videocon International Limited had introduced a scheme under money back policy when the complainant purchased a colour T. V. from his shop under the said scheme. Thereafter, he sent all relevant papers to the company for issuing a receipt. The said papers were not delivered to the company. But the company alone is liable to pay the amount. There is no deficiency on his part . Complainant has shown the Videocon International Ltd as 3rd OP who is having business in 2nd OPs address. The address shown in the complaint is not correct. The Visakhapatnam office; is in no way connected. The complaint is not maintainable and he has to approach Civil Court.