Complainant has filed the present Revision Petition. Petitioner’s case is that opposite party No.3 produces Josh Gutkha and Pan Masala. Opposite party No.2 is regional agent of opposite party No.3 and opposite party No.1 is the local pan seller. A scheme was published by opposite party No.3 that on sale of every 5 pouches of Josh Gutkha and Pan Masala, a gift coupon will be given. For gift coupon, a scheme was framed, according to which, every week a number was to be given out and on getting the number as mentioned in the coupon, various gifts were to be given. If more than one person got a similar number, then the gift was to be given by draw of lots. It is alleged by the complainant that the petitioner had purchased the said Gutkha from opposite party No.1 on 3.12.2001. Petitioner’s coupon carried No.H.12551. In the draw of lots, the petitioner won a Maruti car. Petitioner approached opposite party No.2 at his Indore office. He was not given the Maruti car, thus, being aggrieved, he filed the complaint. District Forum allowed the complaint and held that opposite parties No.2 and 3 were guilty of practicing unfair trade practice. The scheme was of opposite party No.3. District Forum directed opposite parties No.2 and 3 to deliver a new Maruti car to the complainant within 2 months and in failure to do so, opposite parties No.2 and 3 were to pay the price of the new Maruti car with interest at the rate of 6%. The date from which the interest was payable has not been specified in the order. Costs of Rs.500/- was also awarded. Opposite parties, the respondents herein, filed appeal before the State Commission, which has been allowed in part. Order of the District Forum awarding Maruti car to the complainant was set aside and instead opposite parties were directed to pay Rs.20,000/- by way of compensation and Rs.5000/- towards costs. State Commission, relying upon a judgement of the M.P. High Court in the case of Subhash Kumar Manwani vs. State of M.P. & ors. – AIR 2000 MP 109 held that an agreement for payment of prize money based on draw of lots of lottery ticket, comes within the category of wagering contract contemplated under section 30 of the Contract Act and cannot be enforced specifically being void. It was further held that agreement between the parties could not be enforced specifically. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show anything contrary to what has been held by the M.P. High Court in the case of Subhash Kumar Manwani (supra). Under the circumstances, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission and find no infirmity in the same and, accordingly, dismiss the Revision Petition with no order as to costs.
......................JASHOK BHANPRESIDENT
......................B.K. TAIMNIMEMBER | |
