Hon’ble Mr. Ajeya Matilal, Presiding Member
Both parties are present through their Ld. Advocates and files BNA, copy served. Ld. Advocate, Ms. Radhika Mishra appears by filing power on behalf of respondent.
Heard the Ld. Advocates in full.
Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with order no. 2 dt. 28.12.2020 passed by the Ld. DCDRF, North 24 Pgs, Barasat in CC/116/2020, the appellant preferred this appeal. The fact of the case is in short like that the complainant sought for relief in the form of direction upon the OPs to deliver Audi A4 Car which was won by the complainant on Raffle Scheme Lucky Draw. The Ld. Court below refused to admit the complaint with an observation that there was no consideration which was required as per Section 2 (7) (II) of C.P. Act, 2019.
In support of her contention Ld. Advocate for the appellant referred to a decision dt. 20.05.2016 passed by the Hon’ble National Commission in the matter of Hindustan Coca Cola Beverages –vs- Vishamber Dayal Mangal. But it appears at the time of selling of plot there was no provisions regarding allotment of any car and there was no such scheme. It was a subsequent event.
So, we are of the view, the decision referred above is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The Ld. Advocate for the respondent preferred a decision reported on 1993 SCC Online NCDRC wherein para 6 of the judgment the Hon’ble National Commission observed :
“Thus as far as the lottery winning is concerned it cannot be said that the complainant was a consumer who had hired any service for consideration and hence he has no right to get redressal under C.P. Act, 1986.” In the present case also the appellants/complainants did not hire any service of consideration, so they are not consumers.
So, in view of above discussions, we are of the opinion that there is no illegality in the impugned order.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed on contest. The impugned order no. 2 dt. 28.12.2020 passed by the DCDRF, North 24 Pgs, Barasat in CC/216/2020 is upheld. There shall be no order as to the costs.
However, liberty is given to the appellant to approach before a Civil Court for redressal of their grievances.
