Moammed Ayub Khan Soudagarcomplaina vs Amjad Attar

1.THE complainant has filed this Complaint for compensation in a sum of Rs. 19,00,000 as against the opposite parties (OP). THE case of the complainant is as follows:

OPS 1 and 4 jointly introducted an offer at the very popularly known Television Programme called ''Kaun Banega Crorepati'' (KBC) at Star Plus Television Channel. The offer was to exchange Britannia Wrappers worth Rs. 100 at the nearest Britannia Prize Centre for a scratch card. After scratching the silver patch if the words ''Kaun Banega Crorepati'' or words referring to any other prize appear, the purchaser had to hand over the submission coupon with personal details at the prize centre. If the words ''Kaun Banega Crorepati'' appear, the KBC Selection Team would call the purchaser to answer a set of questions. If the purchaser answers correctly he could be on the Show and he could win up to Rs. one crore. Acting on the above offer, the complainant purchased Britannia Biscuits worth Rs. 580 from OP 1 who is a retailer. A copy of the receipt is produced by the complainant as Document No. 1. Thereafter, the complainant handed over the empty wrappers to OP 1 on 30.12.2000 to obtain the scratch cards. A copy of acknowledgement for having handed over the empty wrappers is produced as Document No. 2. It is stated that OP 1 after the receipt of the empty wrappers from the complainant told the complainant that scratch cards have not been supplied by OP 2 and immediately on receipt of scratch cards from OP 2 he promised to deliver the same to the complainant by informing on Telephone. OP 1 pleaded his inability to give scratch cards as OP -2 had not sent the scratch cards but issued a confirmation letter to the effect that the complainant has purchased the Britannia Biscuits on 29.12.2000 stating that he has not delivered the scratch cards as his main dealer, i.e., OP 2 had not supplied the scratch cards to him. A copy of the said document is produced as Document No. 3. It is further stated that OP 2 came to the place of OP 1 and at that time, OP 1 insisted OP 2 to supply the scratch cards to the complainant. The representative of OP 2 namely one Mr. Gangadhar made an endorsement over his bill addressed to OP 1 dated 29.1.2001 stating that though KBC offer was valid, scratch cards were not given along with the Draw Numbers by putting his signature. A copy of the said Bill is produced as Document No. 4. Ultimately, OP 1 contacted the complainant on 8.2.2001 at 7.30 p.m. on Telephone and informed that he has received the offer of scratch cards from OP 2 and requested the complainant to come to his shop and collect the scratch cards. On that information, the complainant collected the scratch cards from OP 1 on 8.2.2001. At that time, OP 1 told the complainant that the scratch cards were received by the DTDC Courier sent by OP 2 along with the covering letter dated 6.2.2001 of OP 2 on 8.2.2001. Then the complainant asked OP 1 what is the use of delivering the scratch cards on 8.2.2001 since the time specified in the offer expired on 7.2.2001 itself. In reply, OP -1 pleaded his inability to do anything.

AS per the offer, the offer issued by OP 3 was valid from 3.10.2000 till 7.2.2001, whereas the scratch cards were delivered to the complainant on 8.2.2001, i.e., after the expiry of the time specified in the offer. This, according to the complainant, has made the complainant to suffer substantial loss and he was deprived of participating in the KBC and has also suffered mental agony as he was mentally made up his mind to participate in the KBC by preparing himself to answer the questions that may be put by the Selection Committee or by Sri Amitabh Bachchan.

OPS 1 and 4 are placed ex parte since they did not appear pursuant to the Notice issued by this Commission. OPs 2 and 3 have filed their version. The case of OP 2 is that being the dealer, he cannot be made liable for any damages for the fault committed by OP 3. OP 2 in its version admits the issuing of the advertisement by OP 3 and that it is the wholesale dealer of the products of OP 3 and it is the designated prize centre. According to OP 2 the complainant ought to have got exchanged the wrappers worth Rs. 100 for each scratch cards by producing the wrappers to it and not to OP 1. If that is so, there is no obligation on the part of OP 2 for the delay in the delivery of scratch cards. The further case of OP 2 is that the representative of OP 2 is not authorized to make any endorsement on Document No. 4 and, therefore, it is not binding on it. The further case of OP 2 is that there is a collusion between the complainant and OP 1 and, therefore, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

OP 3 in its version has admitted that advertisement given offering the incentive to the purchasers, if they purchase a product worth above Rs. 100. According to this OP, as per the terms of the offer, the wrappers could be redeemed only at the designated prize centre and in the instant case as there is no submission of wrappers to OP 2 which is the designated prize centre, there is no liability on its part to pay any compensation to the complainant. The further case of OP 3 is that there is a collusion between the complainant and OP 1 and the Document No. 4 obtained by the complainant is not binding on this OP as the person who indorsed on Document No. 4 is not authorized to do so and, therefore, if at all there is any delay, the delay is due to the fact that the complainant has not approached OP 2 for redeeming of the wrappers.

ON the rival contentions raised by the parties, the only point that arises for consideration is, whether there is any ''deficiency in service'' on the part of OPs 1 to 3 in not rendering the service that is required to be provided by them as per the offer made by OP 3? It is not in dispute that OP 3 issued an Advertisement offering certain benefits to the purchasers of its products. The offer is whoever purchases the products of OP 3 worth Rs. 100 and above would get one scratch card for purchase worth of Rs. 100 and by scratching the silver on the scratch card if the card reveals any one of the items referred to in column No. 9 of R -1 he will be declared as a winner of the prize referred to therein. One of those items provided for is participation in KBC. According to the complainant, if the scratch cards were delivered to him in time, he would have won any one of the prizes including participation in KBC. The further case of the complainant is that he made all attempts to prepare himself to participate in the KBC anticipating that he would win the prize relating to participation in the KBC. But, unfortunately, the scratch cards were delivered by OP 1 on 8.2.2001, i.e., a day after the expiry of the time specified in the offer. This delay according to the complainant has made him to suffer substantial loss and also mental agony and hardship.

THE case of the OPs 2 and 3 is that as per the terms of the offer, the complainant ought to have produced the wrappers to OP 2 to redeem the said wrappers in exchange of scratch cards. No doubt it is true that the complainant has submitted the wrappers to OP 2. It is not in dispute that the complainant has handed over the wrappers to OP 1. Document No. 1 is the receipt for having purchased products of OP 3 for Rs. 580. It is not the case of OPs 2 and 3 that OP 1 is not a retail dealer of the products of OP 3. If that is so, in our view, the Document Nos. 1 and 2 establish the fact that the complainant had, in fact, purchased the product of OP 3 for Rs. 580 and has handed over the wrappers to OP 1 to redeem the same in exchange of scratch cards. The complainant has also produced a letter written by OP 1 to him to show that the scratch cards have not been sent by OP 2 and the moment OP 2 sends the scratch cards the same will be informed to the complainant on Telephone. Document No. 4 is the receipt issued by OP 2 wherein it is recorded that for the purchase of the product of OP 3 by the complainant on 29.9.2001 scratch cards have not been issued to him. The Document No. 4 according to OPs 2 and 3 is not binding on them on the ground that the person who made the endorsement on Document No. 4 is not authorized to make such an endorsement.

AS stated earlier, it is not in dispute that OP 1 is the retail dealer of the products of OP 3. OP 2 is the wholesale dealer of the products of OP 3. Whatever acts done by OPs 1 and 2 ultimately, in our view, bind OP 3. It is not the case of OP 3 that Mr. Gangadhar who made the indorsement on Document No. 4 is not their employee. If that is the case, whatever act done by an employee in the course of his employment will be binding on the employer. It is not the case of OP 2 that the printed receipt is a manufactured one for the purpose of creating evidence. If that is so, from these facts, we are of the view that the complainant has purchased the products of OP 3 for Rs. 580 and he is entitled for five scratch cards. The only contention of OPs 2 and 3 is that the complainant has not produced the wrappers for redemption with OP 2 and, therefore, he is not entitled for any relief.

NO doubt as per the offer the wrappers are to be produced before OP 2 for the purpose of redemption. In the instant case, the case of the complainant is that he has delivered those wrappers to OP 1 and OP 1 in turn requested OP -2 to issue the scratch cards. It is not the case of OP 2 that OP 1 has not sent the wrappers handed over by the complainant to it and thereby the complainant is not entitled for redemption of the said wrappers. If at all, if OP 1 had not sent the wrappers for redemption, there was no need for OP 2 to send the scratch cards to OP 1 so as to deliver the same to the complainant. The complainant has produced delivery run sheet of the courier which is marked as Document No. 9. This discloses that OP -2 had sent the scratch cards to OP 1. If that is so, we are of the considered view that the service that was required to be rendered by OPs 1 to 3 has not been rendered by them and, therefore, there is a ''deficiency in service'' on their part.

THE case of the complainant is that if he had participated in the KBC, he would have won several lakh and further with that fond hope he had made all arrangements to participate in the KBC. It is not known whether the scratch cards issued to him find any one of the prizes referred to in column No. 9 of R -1. Further, it is also not known that even assuming that he was allowed to participate whether he would have won any prize or not. But, at the same time, it cannot be said that he has not suffered any hardship because it is a human tendency that he would get something by acting upon the offer made by others. Therefore, though it is not proper for this Commission to award compensation of Rs. 19,00,000 to the complainant, we feel that the conduct of OPs 1 to 3 clearly shows that there is a deficiency in service by delaying in the delivery of the scratch cards to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant is entitled for some compensation. Though OPs 2 and 3 have taken a defence that there is a collusion between the complainant and OP 1, they have not produced any material to establish the fact of any collusion.

TAKING all these facts into consideration, we are of the view that an Award for a sum of rupees one lakh as compensation in favour of the complainant would meet the ends of justice.

IN the result, we pass the following Order: (1) OPs 2 and 3 are directed to pay rupees one lakh as compensation to the complainant with interest at 12% per annum from the date of complaint till realization. (2) OPs 2 and 3 are also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000 as cost to the complainant. Complaint allowed.