ASHOK CHUG vs BRITOO COCA COLA "KRISHMA CONTEST"

The respondent company advertised a scheme known as ''Piyo Coca Cola Dekho Karishma''. Under the scheme, the respondent company sold Coca Cola bottles with crowns having a yellow band with images of a prize printed on the band as well as on the crown. The prize offered included one flat in Mumbai, 5 Honda City Cars, 1000 domestic air tickets, 200 walkmans, 1500 jeans and 500 cameras. The liners having visual of the prize printed on them, were required to be removed from the crown and were to be sent to Post Box No. 4396, Kalkaji, New Delhi by ordinary post only in a sealed envelope, alongwith full name and address of the sender. The participants were required to retain the metal crown having the visual of the prize, for verification in the event of their winning the prize.

The case of the complainant as stated in the complaint is that he purchased a few bottles of Coca Cola in the first week of October and last week of September, 1998 and was lucky enough to find a crown with yellow band/liner having visual of a flat printed on it in one of the bottles of Coca Cola purchased by him. It was alleged in para 6 of the complaint that the complainant removed the printed liner and visual of the flat and mailed the same to Post Box No. 4396, Kalkaji, New Delhi by ordinary post, alongwith his full name and address in a sealed envelope, in order to ensure that the entry/liner and visual of the prize removed from the crown of the bottle reached the complainant before 25.10.1998, i.e. before the last date for receipt of such entries. It was further alleged in para 7 of the complaint that the complainant had retained the crown of Coca Cola bottle with the yellow band printed with a visual of a flat with him for the purpose of comparison by the respondent at the time of awarding the award to the complainant.

Since no prize was received by the complainant despite his having written a number of letters to the respondent, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint seeking the award comprising of a flat in Mumbai alongwith compensation etc.

The complaint was resisted by the respondents primarily on the ground that no entry at all had been received by them from the complainant.

The District Forum, vide its order dated 01.03.2005, directed as under: 1. The respondents No.1 to 5 are ordered to provide one flat in Andheri East, Mumbai under the ownership of the complainant.

The respondents No.1 to 5 are further ordered to bear all the expenses which are required for the transfer of a flat and further to provide ownership of the flat in all respects in favour of the complainant.

The respondents No.1 to 5 are further ordered to bear even the direct taxes which may occur in providing ownership and possession of the flat in favour of the complainant. In any case if flat is not possible to be handed over in ownership and possession of the complainant then the respondents No.1 to 5 are ordered to pay Rs.five lakhs alongwith interest @ 12% p.a. w.e.f. the date of filing the present complaint till its realization.

The respondents No.1 to 5 are also ordered to comply with the order of the Forum within next 30 days after receiving the copy of the present order. There is no liability of respondent No.6 and, therefore, he is exempted from every liability. There is no order as to costs. Since the maximum limit of amount comes under the purview of the Forum has been awarded.

Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the respondent approached the concerned State Commission. Since the complainant was also not fully satisfied with the aforesaid order, he also filed an appeal challenging the said order. Vide impugned order dated 25.10.2010, the State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the respondents but dismissed the appeal filed by the complainant. Being aggrieved, the complainant is before this Commission by way of these two separate revision petitions.

As noted earlier, as per the terms and conditions of the scheme advertised by the respondents, the liner inside the crown with an image of the prize printed on it was required to be sent to the Post Box No. 4396, Kalkaji, New Delhi in a sealed cover and the said envelope could have been sent only by ordinary post. Since the case of the respondents is that no entry was received by them from the complainant, the first question which arises for consideration in this case is as to whether the original liner with image of a flat printed on it was sent by the complainant to the aforesaid Post Box or not. As noted earlier, the scheme required sending the sealed envelope containing the liner only by ordinary post. If the sealed envelope was to be sent by ordinary post, the consumer can have no documentary proof of having sent an envelope containing the liner with image of the prize printed on it and it is only on the basis of his oral deposition that any controversy in this regard has to be resolved. In para 6 of the complaint, the complainant expressly alleged that he had sent the liner insider the crown to Post Box No. 4396, Kalkaji, New Delhi in a sealed envelope and the same was sent by ordinary post. In para 7 of the complaint, he claimed to have retained not only the crown of the bottle but also the yellow band provided with the visual of a flat. Obviously there being only one band/liner in the crown of the bottle, the complainant could not have sent the same to Post Box No. 4396, Kalkaji, New Delhi and also retained the same for the purpose of comparison by the respondents. Thus, there is an inherent contradiction in para 6 & 7 of the complaint. In view of the aforesaid inherent contradiction which goes to the very root of the matter, it will not be safe to rely upon the case set out by the complainant. Considering the averment made by him in para 7 of the complaint, there is a reasonable possibility of his having retained the yellow band/liner with him instead of sending the same to Post Box No. 4396, Kalkaji, New Delhi. In fact, during the course of hearing, when this question was put up to the complainant who is present in the court, he first stated that only a photocopy of the band/liner was sent by him to Post Box No. 4396, Kalkaji, New Delhi. If this was so, he was not eligible to participate in the scheme, he having not sent the original liner/band found inside the crown of the bottle.

As noted earlier, in para 6 of the complaint, the complainant alleged that the sealed envelope containing the liner/band was sent by ordinary post. On the other hand, in his affidavit dated 15.12.2011, filed before this Commission, he alleged that the liner/band was sent by Registered Post. Thus there is yet another contradiction in the case of the complainant as to the mode by which the band/liner was sent by him to the respondent. Considering the aforesaid inherent contradiction in the case set out by the complainant/petitioner, I am not inclined to accept the case set out by him. Consequently, no ground for interference with the impugned order is made out. The revision petitions are accordingly dismissed, with no order as to cost.

During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the complainant/petitioner submitted that though the respondents claim to have advertised the name of the prize winning candidate, there is no proof of any such advertisement. Considering that I am not inclined to believe the case set out by the complainant, I need not go into the aforesaid aspect of the matter.