RAJIV RANJAN vs BYFORD LEASING LTD

M/s. Byford Leasing Ltd., hereinafter referred to as the Company, advertised a prize wining-cumpurchase of car on instalments basis scheme. The salient features of the scheme were that the entrant had to deposit the stated amount by 22.12.90. A draw of lots was to be held on 24.12.90 at the time and venue mentioned in the ad. The first prizewinner was to be given the car booked by him free of charge. There were other prizes including six consolation prizes. Those not successful in the draw could get the car on payment of the prevailing price either on cash down basis or on instalments managed through Citi Bank. The contestant could apply for any of the well-known brands, which were available at that time. With regard to the margin money deposited by the entrant the same could be withdrawn only after expiry of three years and was to carry interest @ 7% p.a. from after six months of the date of draw. The case of the complainant, Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, was that he deposited Rs. 33,197/- on 20.9.90. He applied for refund of the amount on 1.10.93. A legal notice was sent by him dated 14.9.94. In reply to the notice, the Company offered to refund the amount after deducting Rs. 3,000/- as service charges and with interest @ 7% p.a. in terms of the contest advertised by it. The complainant, feeling dissatisfied, filed a complaint, which has given rise to this appeal. His case was that the Company failed to deliver Maruti Standard A.C. car applied for by him and was liable to pay the difference in the price prevailing at the time of filing of the complaint and the price prevailing at the time of booking. He further claimed interest on the amount deposited @ 24%. besides Rs. 50,000/- on account of compensation for harassment and mental torture and Rs. 2,000/- as costs.

THE plea of the opposite party was that the amount deposited by the complainant was duly acknowledged and he was given Contestant No. 715. His name was included in the draw of lots held on 24.12.90. THE complainant did not win any prize. THE names of those, who were successful in the draw of lots, was duly published in the newspapers. It was further pleaded that the complainant never came forward to ask for delivery of Maruti Standard. A.C. car either by making cash-down payment or on instalment basis through loan to be arranged through Citi Bank. On the contrary, in terms of the scheme, he waited for the period of three years to expire and applied for refund on 1.10.93. THE case required time to be processed in order to see which of the entrants to the contest had already been given cars whether on total payment or on instalment. It was further stated with regard to the legal notice dated 14.9.94, that a reply was sent on 3.10.94 offering to refund the amount with stipulated 7% interest in terms of the scheme. According to the Company, therefore, there was no deficiency in service and the complaint deserved to be dismissed. On a consideration of the material before it, the District Forum recorded the following findings: (1) The money was not deposited by the complainant for booking a car simpliciter as distinguished from entering the contest under the Prize Winning Scheme. (2) There was no basis to hold that the complainant''s name was not included in the draw. (3) The complainant was not keen to buy the car for which he had made the application inasmuch as he never contacted the Company for taking the car either on cash-down basis or on payment of instalments under financing scheme through the Citi Bank. (4) The complainant applied for refund of the amount almost immediately after the expiry of three years in terms of the conditions of the scheme.

Accordingly, it was directed that the Company shall refund the sum of Rs. 33,197/- together with interest @ 7% p.a. from 24.6.90 to 24.12.93 and interest @ 18% from 24.12.93 till date of refund. The opposite party was allowed to deduct Rs. 3,000/- as service charges. The complainant was allowed Rs. 2,000/- as costs. It was further directed that if the order was not complied with within one month, the OP was liable to pay interest @ 24% p.a.

AGGRIEVED by the order, the complainant has preferred this appeal. We have heard the appellant, who argued himself and Mr. S.C. Chadha, authorised representative of the respondent and have carefully gone through the records. The appellant invited our attention to Condition No. 2 of the terms and conditions under scheme, which reads as under: "2. Entrants should satisfy the norms laid down for grant of loans under instalment plan viz. income criteria, proof of residence etc. to become eligible for participation in the contest and the draws."

His contention is that since he never furnished any documentary proof with regard to income criteria and residence etc. his name was never included in the draw of lots and his deposit must be treated as independent of the scheme and there was no reason why he should be denied the market rate of interest on the amount deposited by him. We have very carefully considered this contention and we do not find it possible to accept the same. A perusal of the advertisement clearly shows that the scheme was to hold a draw for the prizes announced by the Company. All contestants were assigned individual number. The receipt dated 20.9.90 assigned S. No. 715 as contestant number to the complainant. The result of the draw was notified in the press. A copy thereof has been placed on record. Admittedly, the complainant did not win any prize. It was open to him to have asked the Company to deliver the car applied for by him on payment of the price thereof. In case, the complainant wanted to buy the car with the assistance of loan, the Company was obliged to arrange for the loan through the Citi Bank and the complainant was bound to pay the instalments thereon. It was rightly held by the District Forum that the complainant never contacted the Company nor asked for the delivery of the car either on cash down basis or on payment of instalments. Condition No. 2 reproduced above would have been attracted only if the complainant had decided to buy the car under instalment plan. He was then required to produce satisfactory evidence regarding income criteria and proof of residence etc. The conclusion that the complainant had only taken a chance to win a prize and was not interested in buying the car on payment of its price is further supported by the fact that there was no mention made by the complainant in the notice dated 14.9.94 that his name has not been included in the draw on the ground that he had not furnished proof regarding the income criteria and residence etc. In fact, the complainant did not mention this plea at any earlier stage. This appears to be clearly an after-thought. The allotment of contestant goes long way to show that the complainant was included in the draw of lots. The advertisement itself stated that draw of lot would be held in Chelmsford Club, Raisina Road, New Delhi at 4 p.m. on 24.12.90. It was a public notice and those of the contestants who wished to be certain that their names were included and that the draw was held in a fair manner must have attended the draw of lots at the time and venue, which was given in the advertisement. No such objections having been raised by the complainant at the appropriate time, it is not open to him now to raise the plea that his name was not included in the draw of lots. Another indication which points to the same conclusion is the fact that almost immediately after the expiry of the period of three years he applied for refund on 1.10.93, as if he was waiting for the said period to expire in order to retrieve the amount. The Company can not, therefore, be faulted for offering to refund the amount deposited by the complainant after deducting Rs. 3,000/- as service charges as stated in the advertisement along with interest @ 7% p.a. for the period of six months after the date of draw till the refund.

THE District Forum has not correctly mentioned the relevant date from which interest is to run. This appears to be on account of typographical error. THE amount deposited was to carry no interest for a period of six months from the date of draw. For the subsequent period, it was to carry interest @ 7% p.a. and the application for refund could be made only on the expiry of a period of three years. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal and direct the respondent to refund the sum of Rs. 33,197/- along with interest @ 7% p.a. thereon for the period 25.6.91 till 30.9.93 when the complainant applied for refund and interest thereafter @ 18% p.a. from 1.10.93 till date of actual payment besides costs allowed by the District Forum. As the time allowed by the District Forum has elapsed, the payment shall be made within six weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the Company will be liable to be proceeded against u/Sec. 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. THE parties will bear their own costs in the appeal. THE appeal is disposed of in these terms. Any direction contrary to these terms are hereby set aside. A copy of this order be conveyed to both the parties as well as District Forum-II. Appeal disposed of.