The complaint filed by the petitioner along with certain other complainants on the same point were allowed by the District Forum.  The order of the District Forum has been reversed by the State Commission holding that the petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions mentioned in the Scheme entitling him to get a Santro Car; that the petitioner did not produce the proof of purchase i.e. copy of the original bill as well as the valid license permitting him

to purchase the liquor beyond the permissible for personal consumption.  Para 17 which deals with the appeal filed by the petitioner, is reproduced as below:

“In appeal No.1403/2004 it is the contention of complainant that he had been to appellant on 27.1.2004 and had produced the caps with the points.  But appellant refused to accept the same.  According to him he sent letter on the very day to the appellant by registered post.  It is to be noted that no evidence in that respect that the appellant had refused to accept the caps produced by complainant on 27.1.2004 has been adduced by complainant.  Further it is to be noted that when complainant is said to have sent letter on the very day to the appellant he could have sent the caps with the said letter.  No caps have been sent by complainant with the letter in question.  Thus there is absolutely no evidence to show that complainant had tried to produce caps with points before the appellant and appellant refused to accept the same.  Terms and conditions also mention that all the claims have to be accompanied by proof of purchase i.e. original copies of bills have to be submitted.  It is not the case of the complainant that he had submitted original bills for showing proof of purchase at the time when he was alleged to have produced caps.  It was necessary for the consumers to give proof of purchase, i.e. copies of the bills with the claim submitted by him. 

-3-

Letter which is alleged to have been sent on 27.1.2004 nowhere mentions that he had sent original copies of the bills with the caps.  There is condition that consumer claiming gift should be above the legal drinking age.  He should possess legal liquor permit on which purchase up to 12 units is only allowed in one day.  Copies of bills have not been submitted.  There is no evidence to show that complainant was having liquor permit.  If the copies and bills would have produced it would have disclosed liquor permit number.  However it is to be noted that bills which are produced by complainant along with his complaint discloses that one of the bills is in the name of one Shri P. S. Nerpagare who is not complainant.  As complainant did not produce the bills there was no evidence to show that complainant possess legal liquor permit and he was above legal drinking age.  Complainant was required to show that he was possessing valid license/permit for purchase of liquor for personal consumption when he was alleged to have produced caps.  Thus it can be said that purchase of the liquor was in the violation of the law.  Thus complainant cannot be said to have complied with terms and conditions of the scheme, he appears to have violated the law.  Forum erred in allowing the complaint”.

(Emphasis supplied)

-4-

We agree with the view taken by the State Commission.  Since the petitioner did not comply with the terms and conditions of policy framed by the respondents, he was entitled to the prize of Santro Car.  Dismissed.  No costs.