VED PRAKASH SHARMA vs VIMAL AGENCIES

THE case of the Complainant is that he was an advertisement in the "Rajasthan Patrika" dated 12th October, 1991 about Bumper Draw of Super Delux Lotteries on the occasion of Diwali. The draw was of rupees one crore and one lac. He sent a Money Order Rs. 100/- to the stockist for the lottery tickets i.e. M/s. Vimal Agencies (Opposite Party No. 1) for sending 10 lottery tickets. The Money order was received by the said Agency on 18thOctobeer, 1991. The draw was to take place on 5th November, 1991. The Agency did not send him the lottery tickets. After waiting for about 8 days, he sent a letter to the said Agency asking for the tickets. He also send a letter to the Director, Mizoram State Lotteries (Opposite Party No. 2). In spite of these letters, he did not receive the lottery tickets upto the date of draw. The Complainant claims that he was sure to get the first prize and was happy in anticipation. However as he did not receive the lottery tickets, he could not get the first prize and also could not celebrate the festival. He, therefore, pays for a compensation of Rs. one crore and one lac towards the fist prize of the said draw plus Rs. 10 lacs as compensation due to mental disturbance.

OPPOSITE Party No. 1 in its counter version admitted the receipt of the Money Order, but pleaded that in the Money Order coupon, the name and address of the sender were not given in the space provided for that purpose. In the space provided for the communication also, the name and address of the sender were not furnished. In the absence of above, the sender of the Money Order could not be identified and the amount was kept in suspense account. Even in the letter sent by the complainant, the Money Order number was not given and, therefore, the Money Order of the complainant could not be located. On account of the above negligence on the part of the Complainant, the lottery tickets could not be sent to him before the date of draw. The amount of Money Order was still lying in suspense account and if the Complainant is desirous of getting the lottery tickets forthcoming draws to try his luck, the tickets of future draws of the value of Rs. 100 can be despatched to him. Alternatively, refund of the amount of Rs. 100/- can be made if asked for. Opposite Party No. 2 also filed his counter version to the effect that the dispute was between the Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1. The letter sent by the Complainant to him was received on 11th November, 1991 i.e. after the date of draw and thus no help could be rendered to the complainant.

AFTER hearing the Complainant, we are of the opinion that the complaint is liable to be dismissed for the reasons given below: The Complainant has not shown as to how he has claimed rupees one crore and one lac as loss of prize of the draw. There was only a hope that he could have got the first prize, but there was no certainty about it. We have also not been able to appreciate how he has assessed Rs. 10 lacs as compensation for the mental disturbance. We are, of the opinion that he has, without any reason quantified his compensation for the alleged deficiency in the rendering of service by the Opposite Party No. 1, just to bring the case before this Commission. We are also of the opinion that there is no question of rendering of ''service'' as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by Opposite Party No. 1. It is a mere case of placing an order for the purchase of lottery tickets which the Opposite Party No. 1 failed to comply.

ON merits also, the complainant has no case. Opposite Party No. 1 has filed a photo stat copy of the Money Order coupon. In the coupon, meant for writing message even the sender''s name has not been written. At the back of this coupon, where the space is provided for writing the sender''s name and full address, it is written therein "address written in Hindi in the M.O. Form". The Money Order form is taken away by the postman after obtaining signatures of the payee on the Money Order acknowledgement. The payee is not expected to note at that time the address of the sender as given in the Money Order Form. Thus, the default committed by Opposite Party No. 1 in not sending the lottery tickets to the complainant is entirely due to the lapse and the negligence of the letter. As noticed earlier, the letter written by the complainant to opposite Party No. 2 was received by the letter after the date of the draw and therefore, he was also not in a position to help the complainant. As a result of the above, we do not find any force in the present complaint and dismiss the same. We make no Order as to costs.