1
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, FATEHGARH SAHIB
Consumer Complaint No.26 of 2020
Date of Institution: 15.06.2020
Date of Decision: 30.09.2021
Avtar Singh, son of Late S. Ranjit Singh, resident of Mohalla Ram Nagar, Bondal Road, Samrala, 141114, District Ludhiana.
.....Complainant
- Britannia Industries Limited, 5/1A, Hungerford Street, Kolkata 700017, through its authorized signatory
- Quality 1st More Retail Limited, Bassi Road, adjoining Mahesh Hospital, Sirhind – 140406 through its authorized signatory
- Britannia Industries Limited, 33, Lawarance Road, Britannia Chowk, New Delhi- 110035.
...Opposite Parties
Complaint under Consumer Protection Act.
Quorum: Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President
Ms. Shivani Bhargava, Member
Present: Sh. Mohit Vashishat, Adv. For complainant
Sh. Navdeep Singh, representative of OP No.2
Sh. Sukhvir Singh, Adv. For Ops No.1 &3
Order dictated by : Shri Sanjiv Dutt Sharma, President, SAS Nagar, additional charge at Fatehgarh Sahib
Order
The present order of ours will dispose of the above complaint filed under Consumer Protection Act, by the complainant (hereinafter referred as ‘CC’ for short) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred as “Ops” for short) on the ground that the OP No.1, widely published through social network, TV Channels, launched a promotion scheme known as “Britannia Khao World Cup Jao” during IPL season between 23.3.2019 to 12.5.2019 on the purchase of their products. It is alleged that this promotion scheme allegedly remained operational during the said IPL cricket matches. “Britannia Khao World Cup Jao” scheme means eat Britannia products and go see the World Cup. The copy of the advertisement is Ex.C1. It is further alleged that CC got attracted to the scheme and further got impressed by the offer of Ops No.1 to 3. In order to see the world cup, the CC purchased the various packets of different products of Britannia. It is further alleged that CC purchased Britannia Tiger Krunch Cookie, Roll Yo Strawbery, Treat Cream Biscuit, Veg Cake, Cake Cho, from OP No.2 through proper billing dated 10.05.2019 for Rs.143/- (copy of tax invoice is attached as Ex.C2). After that CC purchased many more packets of Britannia Company to see the World Cup but all in vain. It is further alleged that the CC at the time of consuming the said products, noticed that Ops has highlighted the word “Britannia Khao World Cup Jao” on the product in bold font but on the other side they mentioned the conditions with small words (which was not readable properly) it was written that that “every product has a code which is required to be sent to Ops through SMS after its purchase. After the use of the said products, of the Ops No.1 & 3, found “codes” outside the cover and sent the said Code numbers through SMS on (9262092620) from his mobile number 9855855189 & 8427755189 to the required destination. It is further alleged that Ops No.1 & 3 also acknowledged the said secret code through confirmation in response to code/s sent to it via SMS by the CC. It is further alleged that their was no positive response from the Ops No.1 & 3 or from its help line number etc. CC without wasting any more time, sent a letter dated 16.5.2019 to the Ops No.1 & 3 through speed post bearing serial No.EP445504170IN & another letter EP445584166IN on 23.5.2019, and requested the Ops No.1 & 3 to send four tickets (one for self, one for wife and two for kids) for flying to England to see the world cup match there but despite of receiving letters, the Ops No.1 & 3 failed to do the needful as per their promotion scheme. It is further alleged that Ops failed to fulfil their commitment as per slogan “Britannia Khao World Cup Jao” and as such they had adopted a Restrictive Trade Practice under Section 2 of the Consumer Protection Act.
Thus, alleging deficiency in service on the part of Ops No.1 to 3, the CC has sought a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the Ops along with litigation expenses of Rs.22,000/-. Complaint is signed and also verified.
2. Complaint was contested by the Ops No.1 to 3 but some times, the advocate for Ops No.1 & 3 appeared and some times the representative of OP No.2 has appeared. Number of dates were taken for filing version and evidence by the Ops. Written version of OP No.2 was filed by Sh. Navdeep Singh, representative of OP No.2. Sh. Sukhvir Singh, Advocate filed Power of Attorney on behalf of Ops No.1 & 3 and also filed written version on their behalf along with evidence.
3. In reply, the Ops No.1 & 3 raised a numbers of preliminary objections. It was admitted that a promotion scheme namely “Britannia Khao World Cup Jao” was introduced during the ICC Cricket World Cup, 2019. However, the Ops No.1 & 3 has termed the complaint as misguided and false by the CC. It is further in the objections that the CC has failed to consider any of the relevant terms and condition of the contest, which were easily accessible to the CC. It is further alleged that it was not a restrictive or unfair trade practice. On merits, the restrictive trade practice is defined in various paras. It is further averred that under the terms and conditions of the contest, a person was eligible to participate in the contest once he had purchased the product of the answering OP. Subsequently, upon participation in the matter as prescribed under the terms and condition during the contest period, participants had the opportunity to win prizes including world cup tickets (world cup prize) and other exciting prizes and also certain assured prizes upon reaching specified milestone. Since the contest period was effective from 01.04.2019 to 30.06.2019, it is evident that the participant ought to have participated within the aforementioned period. It is averred that under the terms and condition of the contest, a participant was required to SMS the 7 digit code mentioned on the product pack to the number 9262092620. Every participants needed to abide by the applicable terms and condition in order to win the prizes. It is further averred that the contest was open to all citizens who was ordinarily residents of India during the contest period. A website was specifically created for the purpose of enabling consumers to access the terms and conditions of the contest with ease and convenience. In addition, the terms and conditions were also clearly displayed and maintained on a continuous basis on the website in lucid English. The said website link was also printed on the packets of the products of the answering OP, and the fact that there were terms and conditions which were also clearly visible on the packaging of the products. It is further averred that there were assured prizes provided under the said contest i.e. guaranteeing that every participant would receive some prize/reward with lucky few getting the prizes such as World Cup Prize, other exciting prizes (Bike, TV, Microwave) assured prizes (e-voucher) etc. It is further averred that it is important to note that the contest clearly and unambiguously indicated that “only a few” would be selected for the world cup prize of winning the ticket to England to watch a match of the ICC Cricket World Cup, 2019. The prices of the products carrying the contest were not increased at any point of time. Therefore, no reasonable person could have presumed that the contest was an open invitation of offer for a customer to purchase the product and then secure the world cup prize by winning a ticket to the world cup as is mischievously sought by the CC. The Ops have challenged the genuineness of the complaint on the various legal points and terming in the complaint that the CC has not approached with clean hands etc. The Ops No.1 & 3 has prayed for dismissal of the complaint. It is pertinent to mention here that the Ops No.1 & 3 has filed 23 pages long reply and disclosed mainly the law points and definitions.
4. In reply, the OP No.2 has raised a number of preliminary objections on the ground that the answering OP is the seller of the products and not the manufacturer of the product and is merely a retail limited party to the proceedings. Moreover, the CC purchased the product from Super Market but till date has not raised any complaint with the OP No.2. The CC has not approached to OP No.2 in any manner. The indulgence of OP No.2 in any kind of unfair trade practice is denied. Thus, alleging no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal the complaint.
5. In support of the complaint, the learned counsel for the complainant has tendered affidavit of complainant Ex.CW1/A alongwith documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C18.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Ops No.1 & 3 has tendered affidavit of Mohd. Mohsin Beg, Manager Legal Ex.OP1/A along with documents Ex.OP1 to Ex.OP2.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the file, carefully.
7. From the perusal of the complaint, I feel, that the main grievance of the CC is that the Ops No.1 & 3 through wide publication through social network, TV Channels launched a promotion scheme “Britannia Khao World Cup Jao” during the IPL Cricket season between 23.3.2019 to 12.5.2019 on the purchase of their various products and the scheme of the Ops No.1 & 3 remained operational during the said IPL Cricket Matches by getting attracted offer of the Ops No.1 & 3, the CC and his other family members started purchase of various products of Ops with the hope that they will go to the Cricket World Cup and will be able to see the matches there. Accordingly, the CC spent Rs.143/- and purchased various products of the Ops. The allegations of the CC is that during consuming of the products, he noticed that the Ops have highlighted the word “Britannia Khao World Cup Jao” but on the other side, it is mentioned in small word, which is not readable properly that every product a code is required to be sent to them through SMS> Accordingly, the CC also sent the codes found outside the cover and sent the same to the Ops from his mobile number. Confirmation of those codes was also received from the Ops No.1 & 3 but no positive response received from the Ops No.1 & 3 from its help line number. It is alleged that the CC without loosing any time sent letter dated 16.5.2019 to the Ops No.1 & 3 and requested for the ticket for England. Thus, termed the act and conduct of the Ops No.1 & 3 as unfair trade practice. We have also perused the empty packets and various eatable articles of the Ops No.1 & 3, duly attached with the complaint marked as Z1 to Z12.
8. To my mind, this is a alleged case of false advertising which can also be defined as use of misleading or false information or claim or similar activity in an advertisement campaign to deceive the user or buyer and to “influence their purchased decisions”. It is essential for the maker and producers of such type of product to honestly represent their items in front of the target audiences. But, when they do not do so then it is definitely a false advertising.
9. Now the question before us is whether the false advertising is defined as a type of advertising i.e. deceptive or untrue because it includes misleading or claims to deceive the purchaser to make a move in the favour of advertiser. To my mind, suppose when the customers goes to buy biscuits, suddenly he gets mislead or gets allured and gets diverted and moves towards the other brands and opted to purchase the biscuits which has very attractive advertisement or allurement. Now the question before us is whether if the advertisement deceives the customers to make a move in the favour of the particular product and later the customer comes to know that the advertisement was misleading and was based on false information, then definitely it is an unfair trade practice on the part of the person, who is selling such products.
10. According to law, the misleading advertising occurs when a firm offers false information on its advertisement on the products. To my mind their was requirement on the part of the CC, which he was supposed to prove, only then the advertisement on the eatable packets of the products of the Ops No.1 & 3 can be termed as false advertisement.
1. The CC viewed the deceptive advertisement.
2. The CC purchased the products after believing the advertisement to be true.
3. That the lie was connected to something important.
4. The advertisement was misleading and untrue.
11. Admittedly, it is admitted fact that the CC had seen the advertisement on the products of the OPS No.1 & 3. We have also seen the advertisement known as “Britannia Khao World Cup Jao” win a trip and other exciting prizes SMS code to 926209220 envelop.
12. It is also admitted fact that the CC purchased the products by paying an amount of Rs.143/- after believing the advertisement mentioned on every product which is Ex.Z1 to Ex.Z12.
13. Now the question before us is whether this advertisement was false or untrue and was connected to something very important, surprisingly in the version of the Ops No.1 & 3 there is nothing that who were the persons, who won the prizes as per their terms and conditions and were sent to see the World Cup in England. It is not made clear in the version filed by the Ops No.1 & 3 that to how many people, the prizes were given, it appears that the advertisement was definitely untrue and was connected with an important events i.e. World Cup. The another question involved in this case is that whether the advertisement was given by the Ops was misleading and untrue, there is no cogent, reliable or trustworthy evidence submitted by the Ops in support of their version that their advertisement on their products which attracted the customers was not misleading and untrue. The terms and conditions Ex.OP1 which are of more than 3 pages are misleading and definitely false and also fall within the purview of malpractice adopted by the Ops. I have minutely perused the eatables products purchased by the CC where the advertisement is mentioned. It is very difficult for a normal purchaser or a customers to understand such technical terms and condition, which are submitted by the Ops in this case. Even, the terms and condition, which are submitted by the Ops as Ex.OP1 are not inconsonance with the reply filed by the Ops No.1 & 3. The terms and conditions are highly misleading and appears to be false and frivolous. Even in reply, it is not disclosed that whether any such prizes were actually given to anyone or not.
14. To my mind, the advertisement mentioned on the packet/product of the Ops No.1 & 3 was a very powerful tool of their company which was used to persuade the CCs to purchase their goods but at the same time, the Ops No.1 & 3 were required to follow strict straight guidelines at the time of advertising their products and mentioning such type of advertisement on their products. To my mind, this type of advertisement was definitely designed to deceive or misleading the various consumers including the CC and is definitely prohibited by law. The consumers were entitled to know exactly what they are purchasing along with the specific amount they are being charged for a product/good or service. There was no clarity in the advertisement, it was nowhere mentioned that the CC were bound by such detailed three pages terms and condition, which could not be understood by even an educated person. It is a case where the OP3 advertised a product but they very well intended not to provide. The image provided on every eatable product by the Ops No.1 & 3 was very lucrative and attractive since the World Cup, 2019 was going on during that period. The CC was having the impression that the product will provide specific benefit and he will be able to visit England during that period. The version filed by the Ops is not based on any logic and also not confidence inspiring. The advertisement on the product of Ops was definitely incorrect and was creating a false impression on lacs of customers/consumers and even on the CC. It also definitely created a misleading impression on the mind of the CC and on various other customers, which is definitely a breach of law. This was definitely an exaggerated and vague scheme about this product. This is a case of failure to disclose the material facts on the part of Ops No.1 &3. The false advertisement can come from both the misstatements and partially correct statements that are misleading because they do not disclose something the consumers should know. The disclosure of the Ops No.1 & 3 was not sufficient rather it was misleading.
15. In view of my above discussion, it is writ-large on the file that Ops No.1 & 3 have adopted unfair method and deceptive articles to attract the CCs as well as the other customers for the sale of their various products have definitely committed unfair trade practice. From the perusal of entire version of the Ops, there is nothing in the version which shows that even a single prize was given by the Ops No.1 & 3 to any one, which clearly proves that the Ops have definitely indulged in fraudulent and malpractice against various consumers, which is not permissible in law.
16. In view of the my above discussion, the present complaint stands allowed against Ops No.1 & 3 in order to curb such malpractices and such type of method used by the Ops No.1 & 3. The Ops No.1 & 3 are burden with punitive cost which will be go to the legal aid account of this Commission to the tune of Rs.2,00,000/-. Ops No.1 & 3 are also directed to pay Rs.25,000/- to the CC, who has filed the present complaint and raised this issue. The OPs No.1 & 3 are further directed to comply with the above said order within the period of 30 days from the date of receiving the copy of this order. Free certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, as per rules. The files be consigned to record room.
September 30, 2021
(Sanjiv Dutt Sharma)
President
(Shivani Bhargava)
Member
