Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                      The  factual matrix leading to the case of  the complainant is that   the OP in order to promote the business of surf excel blue made advertisement stating that whoever would purchase  surf excel blue shall win with the prize having entered to contest by scoring 10/10.The complainant alleged inter-alia that   he  had purchased one packet of surf excel blue from the shop on payment of consideration. As per the scheme of the contest  the complainant allegedly opened  the packet and looked for a box inside which  found a cloth and same after wash by the surf excel blue showed marked 10/10. The complainant followed the instruction meticulously. So, claiming  the prize money of Rs.5,00,000/- he sent the copy of cloth to the Op No.2 but they repudiated the claim stating that the original cloth should be sent instead of xerox copy of the score mentioned on the cloth. Accordingly,  he sent the concerned cloth but the OP refused to pay prize as code which is required to get prize was missing. So, alleging about deficiency in service and unfair trade practice, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP filed written version stating that  the present case is not maintainable due to lack of jurisdiction and the complainant is not a consumer. They have challenged  the  jurisdiction of the consumer court and also admitted about the rejection of the claim of the complainant. Since, the claim/swatch submitted by the complainant besides prima facie being fabricated as the numbers on it were not printed as per the specifications/gold standard swatch  was also devoid of the code which was to be used for authentication and verification purposes  on all the four pieces of cloth having 10/10 scores on them. On the otherhand, the OP No.1  repudiated the claim basing on the fact that as per instruction no such material is produced by the complainant. Thus, they have not awarded any money and  there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.  

5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                              “Ordered that, on submission of due identity in support of his child by the complainant, the OP No.1 & 2 shall jointly and severally pay to the complainant Rs.5,00,000/- towards  the scholarship amount claimed  by him together with Rs.5,000/- as compensation for the mental agony and harassment faced and an amount of Rs.500/- towards the cost of the present proceedings within one month of receipt of this order.

           Accordingly, the case is disposed of.”

6.            Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version  with proper perspectives. According to him, the complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act,1986.  The complainant has not produced any valid documents  in order to substantiate his case. Besides this the OP No.1 has left the job of   the appellant. It is also  submitted that  the complainant failed to prove Section-2(1)(d) of the Act even if against the OP. Besides he submitted that as per scholarship  amount claimed the complainant has not produced the relevant document to get the price and as such the fact has been admitted by the learned District Forum. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.                      Considered the submission  of learned counsel for the parties, perused the DFR and impugned order.       

8.                   It is admitted fact that the complainant has filed the bill dtd.23.12.2006   to show that he has purchased the surf excel blue from the shop. It appears from the record  that the complainant  has filed the case in May,2009. It is not clear  that the surf excel  as per complainant is the same  because  long after years of  such bill, the case has been filed showing certain deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Be  that as it may, the concerned money receipt is not the receipt showing the purchase of the surf excel blue  by the complainant used in this case.  The definition of Section-2(1)(d)  of Act must be  proved either by  direct  or circumstance evidence to show if the buyer  to the concerned to find out  as to claim had  arisen. Since, the complainant has failed to prove the purchase  the surf excel blue he can not file the consumer complaint. On  the otherhand  complainant has  failed to prove the case for seeking relief. Besides, we have gone   through all the materials on record and found that the complainant has not produced the actual material  to the OP to prove receipt the price.

9.                 In view of aforesaid discussion, we  are of the view that learned District Forum has not analyzed  the case properly accordingly to law. So, it is set-aside.  

                   Therefore, the impugned order is set-aside and it is set-aside. Appeal stands allowed. No cost.

                   Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.   

                     DFR be sent back forthwith.