Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President—Whether lottery ticket holders are within the ambit of the definition of a consumer under the Act ? Whether this beneficent jurisdiction is to be extended to such wagering transactions? This is the twin significant question in this complaint.

2. In view of the pristinely legal question aforesaid the facts pale into insignificance. These may be noticed in their barest outline.

3. Mr. Jagdish Chander had purchased a lottery ticket No. S.C.207197 of Sikkim Bharti lotteries at Pehowa. The draw of the State Lottery was held on the 12th of February, 1992 and the complainant was declared the winner of the first prize of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Thereafter on the 6th of March, 1992 the complainant completed all the necessary formalities and sent his claim for payment through the Canara Bank. There was apparent delay in finalising the payment to the complainant and he consequently preferred the present complaint on the 21st of December, 1992 claiming Rs.1,00,000/- against the first prize and curiously another rupees one lac. for the mental harassment caused due to non-payment, alongwith interest thereon.

4. During the course of hearing the complainant dropped the opposite party Nos. 2 & 5 from the array of the respondents and since no appearance was put in on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1,3 &4 they were proceeded exparte. The complainant put in his own affidavit in support of his case and closed the same. In the said affidavit it is now admitted that the complainant had received Rs. 68,078/- on the 27th of January, 1993 as the prize money.

5. 5.From the above it is manifest that all that now survives is the complainant's claim of rupees one lac allegedly for mental harrassment, and interest for the delay and the payment of the prize money.

6. Though no appearance has been put in on behalf of the opposite parties, this Commission is obviously duty bound to first consider the crucial issue whether the relief claimed herein comes within the consumer jurisdiction. On be half of the complainant Mr. Ashish Kapoor, reliance has been primarily on AIR 1933 Madras 16 'Universal Mutual Aid & Poor Houses Association Ltd. Madra v. A.D. Thoppa Naidu and Others' and A.I.R. 1936 Madras 225 'Sesha Ayyar v. Krishna Ayyar & Others' and 1992 Consumer Protection Cases 747 'Ved Parkash Sharma v. M/s Vimal Agencies & Anr.'

7. 7.Before adverting to the aforesaid precedents which were the sole sheet-anchor of the learned Counsel for the complainant, it is necessary to examine the matter on larger principle and on the relevant statutory provisions. On the two questions posed at the very outset one may first pointedly advert to the issue whether the beneficent consumer jurisdiction is to be extended to lotteries and whether they are wagering transaction.

8. 8.Without slipping into the trap of the dictatorship of the dictation arises it is still necessary to advert to the true meaning of the word "lottery" as understood in common parlance. In Webster's Dictionary, the following meaning is ascribed to the word 'Lottery':

"A scheme for the distribution of prizes by lot or chances, specially a scheme by which one or more prizes are distributed by chance among persons who have paid or promised a consideration for a chance to win them, usually as determined by the numbers on tickets as drawn from a lottery wheel."

Yet again in Murray's Dictionary the following meaning is given :

" An arrangement for distribution of prizes by chance among persons purchasing tickets."

9. It would be manifest from the ordinary meaning of the word 'lottery' itself that it is one dependent purely upon chance in the fortitious mode of the draw of lots. There is not the least element of skill or judgment involved therein. It is dependent upon an uncertain event beyond the pale of predictability. It seems unnecessary to elaborate the matter because on the plain meaning of the word 'lottery' it has clearly the hue of a gaming or wagering transaction. Nevethe less