The obligation to deliver a prize as per contest announcement and the applicability of unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act were the central legal points established in the judgment.

Mr. Justice S.C. Datta, President—This appeal is directed against order dated 2.2.1998 passed by Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I, whereby the complaint petition was allowed with a direction to the opposite party to deliver one Maruti 800 car to the complainant/Unit Sales Agency within a month from the date of the order. There has been a further order for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-.

2. The facts involved in this case are very short and simple. The complainant is one of the authorised dealers of M/s. Global Tele System Ltd. On 15.4.1996 the opposite party floated Lucky Bird Contest for its dealers and a public advertisement was issued thereafter. The complainant received the Circular in this regard on 6.5.1996. In the advertisement the dealers were urged to purchase 15 Fax Machines for one Coupon between 20.4.1996 and 30.5.1996. This was one of the conditions to become eligible and qualified to be a participant in the Draw to be held thereafter. The decision to declare the winner in the Draw rested solely upon the opposite party. It was inter alia assured that one Maruti 800 car will be given to the owner on the spot or within the next three months thereafter. The petitioner and other dealers of the opposite party responded to the said advertisement and purchased the required 15 Fax Machines within the stipulated period. On or about 6.5.1996 the complainant was informed that he had qualifed for the said contest to be held at Ooty on or about 15.6.1996. The complainant was given 1st Class Railway Ticket for journey to Ooty and back and other perquisites for attending the said contest on the ground that he was adjudged eligible by the opposite party. The petitioner attended the said contest alongwith 34 other eligible participants and 100 non-participating dealers. The petitioner emerged as the only winner and was declared so after the Draw. It was announced that due to non-delivery of Maruti 800 car from the car dealer, the same could not be delivered at the venue of Draw as promised earlier. The opposite party promised to deliver the same within a short period to the winner, viz. the present complainant at Calcutta. On return to Calcutta the complainant waited in vain for delivery of the said car. Ultimately, he called upon the opposite party to deliver the said car to him. But the latter having failed to oblige him, he brought this action against him.

3. The case was contested by opposite party by filing a written version wherein various objections including lack of jurisdiction of the Forum were taken. The Forum rejected all the objections and directed the opposite party to make delivery of the said car to the petitioner within a month from the date of the order.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Forum, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

5. It is noticed that one of the grounds of objection was lack of jurisdiction of the Forum to try and determine the present dispute. The Forum noticed that the opposite party has its office at 181/1, A.J.C. Bose Road, Calcutta. The Forum was, therefore, right in concluding that the opposite party having its Branch Office within its jurisdiction, it did not lack jurisdiction.

6. Likewise, the Forum was right in over-ruling the objection to the effect that the purchase of Fax Machine was for commercial purpose. The present dispute arose not over the sale of Fax Machines but the dispute centres round the refusal of the opposite party to adhere to the announcement made regarding a contest amongst the dealers for delivery of a Maruti 800 car to the winner.

7. The substantive defence of the opposite party is that the complainant was required to make payment against purchase of 15 Fax Machines within 12.00 noon on 31.5.1996. It is not disputed that the petitioner purchased the required number of machines and made the payment by cheque on 30.5.1996. The cheque, however, bounced and the payment was made later on 10.6.1996. The objection of the opposite party is that th