NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Presiding Member
Director, Command Area and Ors. —Appellants
versus
Nemichand Gupta —Respondent
First Appeal No.889 of 2016
(Against the Order dated 04/05/2016 in Complaint No. 13/2014 of the State Commission Rajasthan)
Decided on 17.11.2017
For the Appellants:Ms. Neha Gupta, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Amrendra Kr. Choubey and Mr. Sunil Kr. Jha, Advocates
IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant by participating in lucky draw and being declared successful in same, does fall under category of consumer.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Sections 2(1)(d) and 24A—Non-Banking—Lucky Draw Scheme—Bungalow was not made available to complainant in terms of offer—State Commission allowed consumer complaint based on averments of parties and directed OPs to allot a bungalow to him by virtue of certificate already issued by them—OPs were also directed to pay compensation of Rs.51,000/- to complainant and Rs.21,000/- as cost of litigation—Complainant by participating in lucky draw and being declared successful in same, does fall under category of consumer—Consumer complaint having been filed in 2014 is within limitation of 2 years as prescribed u/s 24A of Act, considering that letter dated 17.05.2013 did give rise to a cause of action to complainant for filing complaint—Impugned order passed by State Commission does not suffer from any illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error of any kind—Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5, 11, 12 and 13)
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Dr. B.C. Gupta, Member—This First Appeal has been filed under section 19 read with section 21(a)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the impugned order dated 04.05.2016, passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘the State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No. 13/2014, filed by the present respondent/complainant Nemichand Gupta, vide which, the said complaint was allowed.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the complainant Nemichand Gupta stated in his consumer complaint before the State Commission that he received a bond of Rs.1 lakh from the opposite party (OP) Company M/s. Sahara India Limited from their Branch Office, vide receipt No. 10086147689, having booking No. 1773668 Sl. No. 24300 from Kota Region of the OP Company. It is stated that the respondent kept on issuing several advertisements from time to time to motivate the people to participate in a lucky draw scheme, under which different types of prizes were to be given from time to time. It has been stated by the appellant themselves in the present memo of appeal as under:—
“On 30.06.2004, the Respondent/complainant had taken a bond of Rs.1 lakh from the appellants. Under this scheme there was a Lucky Draw Scheme, under which different types of prizes were to be withdrawn. On 06.07.2006 the appellants by way of a letter informed the Respondent/complainant that a lucky coupon of a Bungalow has been drawn in his favour for a price of Rs.25,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs only) of which 480 monthly instalments of Rs.5208/- each were to be paid by the Respondent/complainant. The said lucky draw coupon/offer letter was subject to the terms & conditions, whereby the Respondent/complainant had been given an offer that if he is interested in purchasing house/flat (immoveable property) under Sahara City Homes Scheme, she may accept the offer and after fulfilling the required conditions she can purchase the immovable property.”
3. It has been mentioned in the consumer complaint that despite receiving the certificate dated 06.07.2006, the complainant did not receive any further response from any of the branch office of the OP. He wrote many letters to them dated 13.12.2012, 19.02.2013 and 13.05.2013 etc. but the above said bungalow was not made available to the complainant anywhere. Finally, a letter dated 17.05.2013 was received by the complainant from the OPs in which it was stated as under:—
“Subject – Regarding bumper draw won in Control No. 23149205388
Sir,
With regard to above subject, information has been received from the Controlling Department that in respect of the house won as prize through monthly and quarterly draw of lot under Sales promotion in Sahara Gold/Silver Scheme, Silver Year Benefit Scheme and Silver Scheme, respected Investors after choosing the house on the basis of availability under Sahara Grace, Lucknow, Sahara Estates, Bhopal/Lucknow and Ambevalley and Sahara City Homes (list enclosed), by depositing the booking amount of the house can make the booking. Thereafter, interest free amount could be got adjusted in the remaining amount of the house.”
4. It has been alleged in the consumer complaint that the intention of the OPs was to allot a flat to him, rather than a bungalow for which he had been declared successful in the draw of lots. The complainant filed the consumer complaint in question, seeking directions to the OPs to allot a bungalow to him with value of Rs.25 lakh as won by him in the draw of lots as per their scheme. Further direction was sought to the OPs to pay compensation on various counts for the hardship suffered by him at the hands of the OPs.
5. The State Commission allowed the consumer complaint based on the averments of the parties and directed the OPs to allot a bungalow to him by virtue of the certificate already issued by them. The OPs were also directed to pay compensation of Rs.51,000/- to the complainant for mental agony etc. and Rs.21