Back
HIMACHAL PRADESH STATE CONSUMER
DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, SHIMLA
Hon’ble Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President;
Mr. I.D. Bali & Mrs. Krishana Tandon, Members
M/S. HIRA MOTI SPICES PVT. LTD. & ANR.—Appellants
versus
AMAR CHAND & ANR.—Respondents
Appeal No. 190 of 1997—Decided on 18.11.1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants :Mr. B.R. Vohra, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Chander Pal Sood, Advocate.
Headnote:(1) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Sections 2 and 14 - Appellant with a view to promote sale of their product advertised a scheme of lucky coupon - Complainant was announced winner of prize of Maruti Car - Complainants claim resisted on ground that· complainant had not bought appellants, product by payment of cash - No material to substantiate such contention - Complainant was declared successful after screening committee found him eligible for draw of lots - Defence was an after thought intended to defeat legitimate claim of complainant - Complainant was covered under definition of consumer even when consideration was under system of deferred payment. (Paras 4 to 6)
(ii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(d) - Consumer. Appellant with a view to promote sale of his spices floated a lucky coupon scheme - Any buyer of 20 kg. of spices was to get lucky coupon Complainant purchased 480 kgs. of spices and was declared winner of Maruti car in draw of lots - Claim resisted that goods purchased were for resale and complainant was not consumer - No such objection was taken before Dist. Forum - Objection could not be allowed in appeal. (Para 7)
(iii) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(c)(i) - Appellants with a view to promote sale of his product floated a scheme of lucky draw - Complainant was declared winner of Maruti Car in the draw - Whether appellant adopted unfair trade practice and was liable to pay the prize to complainant? Yes. (Para 10)
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Mr. Justice P.N. Nag, President—This appeal is directed against the order of the District Forum, Shimla, dated 8th July, 1997, whereby the District Forum has ordered that the complainant is entitled to a new 800 CC Maruti car irrespective of value on the date of delivery alongwith interest @ 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-.a specific sum asked for in lieu of car from the date of sending requisite documents to the appellant, alongwith cost of Rs. 1,000/-.
2. The facts which are not in dispute are that the appellants are the manufacturers of spices under the brand name of ‘Appu Spices’ and respondent No. 2 (impleaded as respondent No. 3 in the complaint, hereinafter to be referred to as M/s. Siri Maheshwari Agency, Matiana) is the dealer/distributor of the appellants. The appellants with a view to promoting their sales in spices, advertised and floated a scheme to the effect that on the purchase of 20 kgs. of ‘Appu Spices’ at a stretch from the distributors, a lucky coupon would be given to the purchaser against which certain prizes would be given on the draw of lots of lucky coupon. Among other prizes, first prize was declared as 800 CC Maruti car. The scheme was operative from 1.1.1994 to 31.12.1994 and applicable to Chandigarh, Punjab, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and J & K. The respondent No. 1 Shri Amar Chand (hereinafter to be referred to as complainant) was allured by such scheme and in pursuance thereof the purchased 480 kgs. of ‘Appu Spices’ from the dealer/distributor M/s. Siri Maheshwari Agency, Matiana (respondent No. 2), vide Bill No. 508, dated 6.12.1994 and he was given a lucky prize coupon No. 016541. The complainant was invited by the appellants to attend the draw of lucky coupons which was held at Hotel Mount View in Sector- 10 at Chandigarh on 28.5.1995. The first prize of 800CC Maruti car was announced against coupon No. 016541 issued to the complainant by M/s. Siri Maheshwari Agency, the dealer/distributor of the appellants. Although as per requirement of scheme, all the documents were sent by the complainant, the appellants failed to deliver the car to the complainant in accordance with the terms of scheme and hence the complaint.
3. The claim of the complainant, however, has been resisted by the appellants on the ground that the complainant has purchased the spices at credit without making any cash payment and that it was announced at the time or before the draw of lots that the person who has not made the cash payment for purchases of Appu Spices’, they will not be considered for any prizes and that the holder of the coupons will have to satisfy the Screening Committee that they were eligible for consideration for the purpose of draw of lots by producing there levant documents, including the receipt of the payment in cash. As such the complainant was not eligible for draw of lots. This scheme does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.
4. The main thrust of the argument of Mr. B.R. Vohra, the learned Counsel for the appellant was that the complainant has not bought the Appu Spices by making payment in cash and as such he was not eligible to be considered for the draw of lots and to the Maruti Car against the coupon issued to him. According to him, it was clearly announced by the Screening Committee before the draw of lots that the person who had not made payment in cash, they would not be considered for any prize. This contention is completely devoid of any merit. At the outset, we may notice that no scheme as such has been placed on the record to substantiate that payment for the purpose of ‘Appu Spices’ was necessarily to be made in cash and not on credit. Further, there is no evidence placed on the file to substantiate that at the time of draw of lots held on 28.5.1995 at Chandigarh it was announced by the Screening Committee that only person who had made payment in cash for purchase of ‘Appu Spices’ against which they have received lucky coupon, shall only be eligible
