This revision petition has been filed against the order dated  19.5.2017  passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow, U.P. ( for short, ‘State Commission ‘) in F.A. No.732/2015.

2.      Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner had launched a challenge/scheme known as ‘Tyoharaon Ki Saugat” for  group of eligible subscribers between 22.10.2012 to 24.11.2012.  In order for a subscriber to be eligible for the aforesaid challenge/scheme, it was necessary that the participant was the ‘rightful owner/user of the pre-paid mobile connection of Idea, registered in UP telecom circle and in whose name the mobile connection is active.  It is the case of the complainant that  on 30.11.2012 the complainant received a message on his Mobile number that the respondent had won an Alto Car in pursuance of the aforesaid challenge/scheme.   It is further the case of the respondent that despite approaching the office of the petitioner, the respondent was not provided an Alto Car.  On 6 .4.2013,  a Consumer Complaint no.78/2013 was filed by the respondent  before the District Forum, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh claiming an Alto Car or its value alongwith compensation of Rs10,000/- and Rs.5,000/- as litigation cost.

3.      The complaint was resisted by the OP/petitioner herein by stating that on the same date after some time a revised message was sent to this number as well as to others stating that earlier sent message be ignored.  It was also stated that this number was not registered in the name of the complainant rather it was registered in the name of Mr. Lal Bihari and therefore, the complainant was not  entitled to file this complaint. However, the District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay the claimed price of the Alto car alongwith compensation of Rs.5,000/- plus cost of litigation of Rs.2,000/- within a period of one month, failing which  6% p.a. interest was payable till actual payment.

4.      Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the OP preferred an appeal before the State Commission baring no. FA No.732 of 2015. The State Commission upheld the order of the District Forum except the order relating to Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the complainant as compensation which was set aside.

5.      Hence, the present revision petition. 

6.      Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent/complainant in person. 

7.      Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that message that the complainant has won Alto car was received on 30.11.2012 and on the same day after some time another message was sent to the complainant on the same number including other subscribers as corrective measure  mentioning the subscribers to ignore the earlier text message since the same was issued to several subscribers on account of a manual error.

8.      The learned counsel further stated that the phone number on which message was received was not registered at that time in the name of complainant and  was registered in the name of Mr.  Lal Bihari who had filled the form for getting the connection. Thus, the complainant had no locus standi to file the complaint.

9.      It was further mentioned by the learned counsel for the petitioner that similar complaints were filed by other subscribers to whom the message was sent  and some of these complaints have already been dismissed by  the respective fora. He has filed copies of the order dated 17.12.2015 and 25.1.2016 in CC No. 22/2013 and CC No.21 of 2013 respectively decided by the District Forum, Mirzapur wherein the complaints have been dismissed.  The learned counsel mentioned that the list of the actual winners was published and the District Forum, Mirzapur has taken note of this list and  the complaints were dismissed. There was only one Alto car for the main winner however after more than one complaints have been filed at  different places, the OP cannot be directed to give Alto Car to each one of the complainants who filed similar complaints when the list of actual winners has already been published and the car has been given to the actual winner.

10.    On the other hand, respondent/complainant in person stated that he was holding connection in his name and he has filed receipt and another relevant papers of taking connection before the District Forum. He got converted his pre-paid connection to post-paid connection by giving application in writing and by paying the required amount and since then he is also getting regular bills in his name.  He stated that it is wrong to say that connection was in the name of Lal Bihari as Lal Bihari was summoned by the District Forum and he clearly denied having any SIM of petitioner company and he clearly stated that he was not a subscriber of the petitioner company. This story has only been  made by the petitioner to deny the claim of the complainant. It was further pointed out by the  respondent /complainant that he has not received any second message and this is only an after thought by the petitioner company. It is not a case when only the message was received of winning Alto Car on 30.11.2012  but it was a sequence of events when  the number of the complainant has reached stage by stage to the ultimate award of Alto Car. Earlier he has received message on 7.11.2012 in  respect of   Challenge/Scheme known as Tyoharaon Ki Saugat. This means  that complainant’s  number was at least one of the competitors. Thus, winning of prize by the complainant was not something unexpected.  The petitioner company cannot  go back to withhold  the prize money from the complainant. Both the fora below have given concurrent findings and  the scope under the revision petition is quite limited as  the facts cannot be reassessed by this Commission against the concurrent findings of facts given by both the fora below.

11.    I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by both sides and have examined the material on record.  There is no denying the fact that the Complainant’s Mobile No. 8573898689 was one of the competitors and there was nothing unusual if a message was received on his phone about winning of Alto Car. The complainant had denied receipt of second message which stated that the earlier message sent may be ignored. 

12.    It is seen that the credentials of the petitioner company become doubtful when the petitioner tries to prove that the mobile connection was not in the name of the complainant, rather it was in the name of Mr. Lal Bihari, which has been found incorrect by the fora below as the complainant got his pre-paid connection converted to post-paid connection and has also submitted the bills in his name.

13.    A perusal of the copy of orders filed by petitioner in the two complaint cases decided by the District Forum Mirzapur shows that there are more cases claiming Alto Car. It gives strength to the arguments of the petitioner that the message was sent to more than one person and that is why second message was sent for ignoring the first message. However, it is also a fact that the mobile number of the complainant was in the list of competitors and could have been winner.  After receiving the message of winning the Alto car, it is obvious that the complainant must have taken this message to be true and after he did not receive any revised message as he claims, denying him Alto car by the OP would really have caused harassment and mental trauma to a great extent.    The action of the OP company would definitely amount  to causing undue harassment and mental agony and shattering  of expectation of the complainant. Due to this negligence of the OP company, the complainant is entitled to appropriate compensation  for the mental trauma, harassment and shattering of expectation, if not a car. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to allow a compensation of Rs.1 lakh to the complainant to be paid by the OP.

14.    Based on the above discussion, the revision petition is partly allowed and order of the District Forum dated 23.2.2015  stands modified to the extent that instead of Alto car or its price, the petitioner/OP company shall be liable to pay only Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one  lakh only)  to the complainant. Consequently, the impugned order of the State Commission also stands modified. The amount may be paid  within a period of 45 days from the date of this order, failing which the amount of Rs.1,00,000/-    would attract interest @ 10% p.a. from the date of this order till actual payment.  A cost of litigation of Rs.5,000/- is also ordered to be paid to the complainant by the OP.