Mr. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia, President–– Whether the persons participating in a lucky draw scheme are consumers (within its definition under the Act.) qua the promoters thereof? This indeed is the threshold core question in this set of three connected appeals.

2. Randhir Singh, appellant in all the three appeals had challenged the virtually identical orders of the District Forum, Panipat allowing the three complaints against him. Learned Counsel for the parties are agreed that the issue of facts and law being identical, this order will govern all of them.

3. The representative matrix of facts may be noticed with brevity from First Appeal No. 46 of 1994 ‘Randhir Singh of District Panipat v. Kartar Singh of Distt. Panipat and Others. The case set up by the respondent complainant was that the appellant and his brother Randhir Singh had opened a shop in the name and style of M/s. Shiv Electronics and Video Estate at Samalkha. The said concern had floated a Lucky Draw Scheme inviting participation therein. The primal feature of the scheme was that the members of the scheme paid a sum of Rs. 50/- per week and a lucky draw was held each week at the premises of M/s Shiv Electronics. Th