NIHAR RANJAN CHHOTRAY vs CHAIRMAN, BAJAJ AUTO LTD.

THIS is an appeal by the complainant whose complaint patition has been allowed with a mere direction to the respondents M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited and M/s. Priti Auto Combine, the autiorised dealer of the said company, to issue to the complainant the prize card on the basis of which the complainant could receive certain valuable, prizes offered by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., to the persons who would purchase a Bajaj Scooter in between the period from 1.12.99 to 31.12.99 which the company termed as "Bajaj Crorepati Hungama". The first prize was offered to be Rs. 1 crore, 100 prizes were of Rs.1 lakh each and there were other prizes such as music system, watches, etc. 1. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Bajaj Scooter of ''Legend'' model from dealer on 28.12.99 on paymant of Rs. 32,900/-. The responant No. 2 did not issue the prize card so offered by the company. Therefore, he filed the case claiming that had he been given the prize card, he would have at least got a cash prize of Rs.1 lakh.

THE District Forum accepted the case of the complainant that he was entitied to a prize card, but it did not allow his prayer for any monetary relief. On going through the impugned judgment and the materials on record, we find the Company in fact floated the scheme and offered the prizes to the public, thereby attracted each and every interested person to go for a Bajaj, two-wheeler. Such offer certainly termed to be an offer to enter into a contract that whoever purchased a Bajaj Scooter during the specified period, would be given a prize card and thus the holder of such card might be entitled to a prize that could be found on the card being scratched. The Company did not come forward with a case that in fact any of the customers who purchased a Bajaj Scooter during that period ever received any prize from this offer. We are of the view that once they made an offer and the complainant being satisfied as to the bona fide conduct of the company purchased the scooter because of the offer, there was a full-fledged contract which the respondents should have performed. Their only plea is that on the day on which the complainant purchased the scooter the scratch cards had been exhausted and that they even wrote letters to the complainant to come to their shop and collect the scratch card, but the complainant did not contact them and, therefere, they did not commit any deficiency in service.

We find this has become a popular and widely recognised way of attracting customers. There is no material to hold that on the date of purchase, that is on 28.12.99 in fact there was shortage of acratch cards with the respondent No. 2. A mere bald assertion is not sufficient to prove the case. The letter dated 6.3.2000 of the dealer respondent No. 2 shows that the complainant was informed that the remaining scratch cards had been received from their principal Bajaj Auto Ltd., and that the complainant should contact the dealer and avail the opportunity at the earliest. Subsequent letter of the said dealer dated 13.3.2000 sent through courier service informed the complainant again to avail the opportunity by contacting them. In the earlier letter dated 19.1.2000 the respondent No. 2 had expressed their inability in not providing the scratch card on the date of purchase of the sccoter (sic.).

FOR the reasons indicated above, we find there has been deficiency of service on the part of Bajaj Auto Ltd., in not providing the complainant with the scratch card on the date of purchase. It was none of the business of the complainant to contact the dealer in time and again for a scratch card. However, the complainant had taken the pain in damanding the scratch card immediately and also carrying on correspondences with the company. We do not find there was anything wrong with the complainant purchasing the scooter in time which he might not have chosee, but for the offer. In that case nothing prevented the Company or for that matter the dealer not to provide the scratch card to the complainant immediately or even at his given address, instead of writing letters which the complainant denies to have received. There is no proof from their side that the complainant received such letters of intimation. The possibility of the dealer keeping back the scratch cards for itself or for use by their near and dear ones cannot be ruled out. The principal M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd., also did not come forward with any material to indicate that it made available subsequently the scratch cards, because so far as the written version is concerned, the same is by one Narshing Lal Agarwal, the proprietor of the dealer-respondent No. 2. This has not been signed or verified by any of the functionaries of M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. The respondent No. 2 being a separate legal entity, cannot plead admitting certain facts on behalf of the principal in such a situation. Therefore, we construe that M/s. Bajaj Auto did not file, a written version and the written version filed by the dealer could not be considered as that of M/s. Bajaj Auto. Bajaj Auto did not come forward with a case as pleaded by the dealer. Who knows, Bajaj Auto might have given all the scratch cards necessary for the purpose of booking the Bajaj two-wheelers with respondent No. 2. FOR all these reasons we find both of them to have committed deficiency of service by avoiding to provide the complainant with the scratch card. The complainant might not have suffered any loss in any tangible form, but the fact remains, he was cartainly attracted to purchase a ''Legend'' scooter and with the hope that he might be getting a big gift if there was any change. The mental stress and agony for entering into such a contract can be imagined, though it is difficult in such a situation to assess the quantum of compensation for such mental stress and agony. Therefore, in disagreement with the judgment of the District Forum, we allow the complaint petition, direct the opposite parties, who are made jointly and severally liable, to pay a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) as compensation to the complainant for mental stress and agony and for depriving him of the benefit offered under the contract. The complainant shall also be paid a cost of Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) besides the compensation. The amount be paid within two months from the date of communication of the order. Appeal allowed.