Hyundai Motor India Ltd. vs T. N. Grover

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2021 Supreme(Del) 2045

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Jyoti Singh, J.
Hyundai Motor India Ltd. & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
T.N. Grover - Respondent
R.S.A. No. 88 of 2019; C.M. No. 19306 of 2019
Decided On : 22-04-2021

Advocates appeared:
Manish Shrivastava, Advocate, Rijul Taneja, Advocate, Rahul Gupta, Advocate, Varun Chopra, Advocate, Sanjay Agnihotri, Advocate, Sandeep Choudhary, Advocate

Headnote:
Contest - Sales Promotion Scheme - Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 65B - Suit for Mandatory Injunction - [CONTEST] - [SALES PROMOTION SCHEME] - [Indian Evidence Act 1872, Section 65B] - The court discussed the maintainability of a suit for mandatory injunction without seeking relief of declaration, the burden of proof on the parties, and the interpretation of the contest rules and prize entitlement. The court found that the plaintiff's title to the prize was clear and the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable. The court also emphasized the importance of proving the authenticity of documents and the dispatch and receipt of letters in such cases.
Fact of the Case:

The Respondent purchased a car and participated in a contest, winning the third prize. The Appellants disputed the prize and failed to prove the existence and dispatch of a letter informing the Respondent of a change in prize. The Trial Court decreed the suit for mandatory injunction in favor of the Respondent, which was upheld by the First Appellate Court.
Finding of the Court:

The suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable as the Respondent's title to the prize was clear. The Appellants failed to prove the existence and dispatch of the letter informing the Respondent of a change in prize. The burden of proof was on the Appellants, and the Respondent was entitled to the prize as per the original letter.
Issues: The main issue was the maintainability of the suit for mandatory injunction without seeking relief of declaration. The burden of proof on the parties and the entitlement to the prize were also key issues.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit for mandatory injunction was maintainable as the Respondent's title to the prize was clear. The Appellants failed to prove the existence and dispatch of the letter informing the Respondent of a change in prize. The burden of proof was on the Appellants, and the Respondent was entitled to the prize as per the original letter.
Final Decision: The appeal and the pending application were dismissed with costs in favor of the Respondent.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. - Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed assailing the judgment dated 28.02.2019 passed by the First Appellate Court whereby the appeal of the Appellants preferred against the judgment and decree dated 19.09.2017, was dismissed. Appellants herein were the Defendants in the suit and Respondent was the Plaintiff.

2. The facts of the case in a narrow compass are that the Respondent/Plaintiff purchased a new Hyundai Accent Car bearing Registration No. DL-9-CH-0668 from M/s. Rama Motors Pvt. Ltd., a registered dealer. At the time when the car was purchased, Appellants/Defendants were conducting a "World Cup Contest? as a part of their Sales Promotion Scheme. Under the Scheme, all those who purchased any Hyundai Model Car, during the specified period, could participate in the contest. The details of the contest and the various prizes were published in widely circulated newspapers for the benefit of the general public on 13.06.2002. According to the Scheme, the following prizes were to be awarded to the winners of the contest :-

"First Prize Sonata Gold Car

Second Prize Sonata Gold Miniatures from Tanishq

Third Prize Sonata Gold coin from Tanishq 100 gm each

Fourth Prize Gold coin from Tanishq 5 gm each

Hyundai T-Shirt and football for all the buyers"

3. Respondent/Plaintiff participated in the contest and filled up the necessary entry forms while purchasing the vehicle. He thereafter received a letter dated 14.08.2002 from the Appellants/Defendants informing him that he had won the third prize in the contest which was concluded on 08.08.2002 albeit the weight of the gold coin was mentioned as 5 Grams as against the weight of 100 Grams, which was the third prize as per the publication in the newspapers. He was also informed that the prize would be sent through direct mailers at the address of the Respondent/Plaintiff by 31.08.2002. To this extent, the facts are undisputed between the parties.

4. Respondent/Plaintiff sent a number of letters to the Appellants/Defendants asking them to fulfill their commitment and send the third prize, but there was no response. A legal notice dated 10.10.2003 was sent to the Appellants/Defendants and in their reply dated 27.11.2003, Appellants/Defendants took a stand that the Respondent/Plaintiff had won the fourth prize, i.e., 5 Grams gold coin and mention of Third prize in the letter dated 14.08.2002 was an error. It was also stated that the error was rectified immediately and a corrigendum letter dated 16.08.2002 was sent.

5. Failing to receive the prize, Respondent/Plaintiff filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction directing the Appellants/Defendants to deliver 100 Grams Sonata gold coin being the third prize of the contest. Written Statement was filed by Appellants/Defendants and the suit was primarily contested on the ground that Respondent/Plaintiff had won fourth prize and was entitled to 5 Grams gold coin and not 100 Grams Sonata gold coin. Plea taken was that there was a typographical error in the letter dated 14.08.2002 and therefore, a corrigendum dated 16.08.2002 was sent to the Respondent/Plaintiff, clarifying the position since the contest was conducted by independent agency M/s. Quantum Direct India Private Limited through a computerized draw of lots on 08.08.2002. Replication was filed to the written statement, wherein, the Respondent/Plaintiff categorically denied receipt of letter dated 16.08.2002 and pleaded that the said letter was forged and fabricated to defeat the rightful claim of the Respondent/Plaintiff to the third prize.

6. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 04.08.2004:-

"1: Whether the Plaintiff has suppressed the material facts from this court? OPD

2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief claimed for? OPP

7. Respondent/Plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and led evidence by way of affidavit Ex. P-1. Legal notice was exhibit PW-1/2 and letters sent to the Appellants/Defendants were also relied upon and exhibited. Reply to the legal