Baby Anmol Mahajan vs M/S. Videocon International Limited

BABY Anmol Mahajan, a minor, had filed a consumer complaint before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab through her father Shri Ravindra Mahajan. The State Commission dismissed the complaint in its order of 8.12.2006 and therefore, the present appeal before this Commission.

THE matter arose from a claim under a marketing scheme of the OPs under the capitation ''VIDEOCON DIWALI PHATAKA EK MEIN CHAR KA DHAMAKA ''. The scheme entitled a Television purchaser to a scratch card on every purchase. The purchaser was entitled to get price/gift indicated on the scratch card. The case of the Complainant was that on 19.11.2003 he had purchased a Videocon Television for which he was issued a receipt, together with scratch card bearing serial no.291206. The gift/price carried on this scratch card was mentioned as 5 kgms. of gold. The claim of the Complainant was rejected by OP -1/Videocon International Limited, Aurangabad through a letter of 5.3.2004. As per this letter, the scheme under which the Complainant had purchased the Television was valid only from 26.9.2003 to 31.10.2003. The State Commission held that the Complainant was not entitled to any benefit under the scheme, observing that - ''''Learned counsel for OP Nos.1 and 2 has argued that the scheme in question was launched for a specific period i.e. 25th of September 2003 to 31st of October 2003 and as such the scheme was closed on 31.10.2003. Since the complainant alleged to have purchased the television in question on 19.11.2003 she does not fall in the scheme. It has been further argued that the scheme was never extended nor any consent was obtained by OP No.3 from OP Nos.1 and 2 for extension of the scheme after 31.10.2003. OP No.3 had no power to extend the scheme at its own and as such no benefit under the scheme can be given to the complainant. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for OP Nos.1 and 2. We have gone through the scheme dated 26.9.2003 in which it has been clearly mentioned against the column period that the scheme is valid from 25th of September 2003 to 31st of October 2003. Admittedly, the television in question was purchased by the complainant on 19.11.2003 and as such, the complainant does not come within the four corners of the scheme. We are of the view that the complainant is not entitled to any benefit under the scheme as she is not covered with the same ''''.

DELAY of five days in filing the appeal is condoned. The main ground of appeal is that the State Commission has failed to consider that respondent No.3/OP -3 M/s. Ramji Electronic Corporation, Batala (Punjab), who was the agent of respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. M/s. Videocon International Ltd., had admitted before the State Commission that the Television was sold by him to the appellant/Complainant under the scheme. It is contended that the State Commission has overlooked the fact that the scratch card was given to appellant /Complainant by their own agent i.e. respondent no.3. Allegedly, neither the scratch card nor the other documents concerned with this purchase carried any mention that the scheme was valid only up to 31.10.2003.

THE plea taken by OP -1 and OP -2 before the State Commission was that the validity of the scheme was not extended. Nor was any dealer or agent authorized to extend the same beyond 31st October, 2003. OP -3 had acted without the knowledge or authority of OPs 1 and 2. Per contra, OP No.3 had filed a separate reply. Significantly, in this reply it was admitted that on November 19, 2003 the complainant purchased a colour T.V. 21 '' make Videocon bearing Model No.5502 for Rs.13,990/ - vide bill No.4109 dated 19.11.2003 under the scheme of Videocon Diwali Phataka Ed Mein Char Ka Dhamaka. It was also pleaded that at the time of purchase of the television by the customer the scheme of Videocon Diwali Phataka Ed Mein Char Ka Dhamaka was subsisting and the television was sold to the customer along with the scratch card No.291206 as there were clear instructions and directions from respondent Nos.1 and 2 to dispose off the stock of Videocon Colour Television with the scratch cards under the scheme. It has been further pleaded that the television in question was sold to the complainant along with the scratch card No.291206 with the surety of giving the prize/gift mentioned on the other side of scratch card. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. Learned counsel for the appellant/complainant relied directly on the pleadings before the State Commission of OP -3/Ramji Electonics Corporation, Batala, who had sold the TV to the complainant. He argued that the surety/assurance of giving the prize in dispute to the complainant was given by respondent Nos.1 and 2 through OP No.3. No time period was written on the scratch card in question. These facts have not been considered by the State Commission.

IN our view, the records clearly bring out that - a. On 19.11.2003 the TV was sold by OP -3 to the complainant under the scheme VIDEOCON DIWALI PHATAKA EK MEIN CHAR KA DHAMAKA. b. With the TV, scratch card No.291206 was also given to the complainant. c. The scratch card did not show that the scheme was operational only till 31.10.2003. d. There is nothing to show that the end date of 31st October was also informed to or shared with the complainant. In any case, the stand of OP -3 before the State Commission was that as per his oral instructions, the period had been extended. e. It is claimed in Para 4 of the WS filed by OP -3 that there were oral instructions from Op -1 and OP -2 ''''to dispose of the stock of Videocon Colour Television with the scratch cards under the scheme as detail above. Accordingly the television in question sold to the complainant along with the Scratch Card No. 291206 (with the surety of giving the prize gift mention on the other side of scratch card. ''''

OUR attention was also drawn to Exhibit R -1 before the State Commission. It is copy of a letter of 26.9.2003 from Videocon International Ltd., to ''''All BUSINESS ASSOCIATES (PUNJAB/CHD/HP/J&K). It does mention the period of the scheme as 25th September, 2003 to 31st October 2003. But, learned counsel for the appellant/complainant argued vehementally that it was only an internal communication between the company and its business associates. From the evidence before the State Commission it is clear that OP -3 had sold the TV to the complainant under the scheme and with the scratch card. The fact that the number on the scratch card entitled him to receive the promised quantity of gold is not denied. In so far as the consumer i.e. the appellant/complainant is concerned, there was no confusion between him and his vendor i.e. OP -3 about it. Whether the act of the vendor/OP -3 was under the authority of OP -1 and 2 or not, is a question which has no relevance to the resultant claim of the appellant/complainant. Admittedly, the vendor/OP -3 was a dealer of OPs -1 and 2 and was competent to implement the relevant scheme on their behalf.

WE therefore, do not find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the State Commission that this purchase did not fall within the four corners of the scheme. It amounts to punishing the complainant for confusion, if any, between the OPs over the manner of implementation of the scheme. Consequently, the impugned order is set aside. The OPs are held to be jointly and severally liable to give the quantity of gold promised under the relevant scratch card, or value thereof as on the date of the transaction of purchase of the television, within three months from the date of this order. Delay, if any, shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.