SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

V.BALAKRISHNA ERADI, A.S.VIJAYAKAR, B.S.YADAV
BYFORD – Appellant
Versus
S. S. SRIVASTAVA – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner:Mr. V.S. Joneja, Advocate.
For the Respondent: In person.

ORDER

Mrs. A.S. Vijayakar, Member—This is a Revision Petition against the order of the State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No.A-7/93 in which the appeal was partly accepted and the order of the District Forum, Delhi, was modified whereby the respondent is directed to deliver to the Complainants two return tickets to New York or in the alternative to pay the then prevailing price of two tickets to him and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation within two months of the date of the order.

2. The facts of the case as found by the State Commission are that M/s. Byford, opposite party, issued an advertisement entitled “Win a Premier Padmini Car EPDE”. In a nutshell it was stated in the advertisement that a person could enter the contest by booking a Premier Padmini Car. On the specified date(s) draws would be held and the person who were successful in the draws, would be entitled to two free tickets from New Delhi to New York and back. In pursuance of the advertisement, the complainant purchased a Premier Padmini Car from the opposite party and thus entered the contest.

3. The opposite party by their communication dated 4.7.1990 informed the complainant that he was the winner of 3rd draw of










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top