AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
2 paragraphs · 367 words-IN order to increase sale of Ghee the petitioner/opposite party No. 1 had launched a scheme with prizes and in the draw held on 25. 12. 2001, coupon bearing No. 572119 won the first prize of a motorcycle. Respondent No. 1/complainant alleged that he being the holder of coupon bearing No. 572119 is entitled to the said prize. On prize not being given he filed complaint which on contest by the petitioner was allowed by the District Forum by the order dated 24. 3. 2003 with direction to the petitioner to hand over the motorcycle and pay Rs. 1. 500 as compensation and cost. Dissatisfied with District Forum''s order the petitioner filed appeal which was dismissed by the State Commission vide order dated 23. 3. 2007. It is this order which is being challenged in this revision.
MAIN submission advanced by Mr. S. K. Sharma for petitioner is that the coupon possessed by respondent No. 1 is a forged one and claim for the first prize was also lodged by one Chogaram proprietor of Shri Balaji Provision Store and Containers/packets of Ghee were never sold by the petitioner to respondent No. 2/opposite party No. 2 Store from whom the petitioner is stated to have purchased the container/packet of Ghee carrying the winning coupon. As may be seen from the order of District Forum the original coupon No. 572119 was seen by the Forum and thereafter it returned the finding that there was no forgery and/or cutting therein which finding has been affirmed by the State Commission. On inquiry if winning coupon was produced by said Chogaram or motorcycle given to him or any other person, Mr. Sharma answers in negative. As regards later limb of submission, it may be stated that the plea of containers/packets of Ghee not having been sold to respondent No. 2-Provision Store, was not taken even remotely in the written version. In absence thereof the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise it in this revision. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by Fora below warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21 (b) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. Revision Petition dismissed.