Date of filing : 24-07-2013
Date of order : 28 -05-2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.171/2013
Dated this, the 28th day of May 2014
PRESENT:
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : PRESIDENT
SMT.K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
SMT.SHIBA.M.SAMUEL : MEMBER
Gangadharan.T.P, “Abhinand” : Complainant
Karattuvayal, Hosdurg, Po.Kanhangad. 671314
Kasaragod.Dt.
(In Person)
1 Director, : Opposite parties
Grand Kerala Shopping Festival, JNWAG2,
Near A.L.P.School, Jawahar Nagar,
Kavadiyar.Po. Trivandrum. 695 003.
2 Secretary,
Kasaragod Dist. Tourism Promotion Council,
Kasaragod.
(Ops 1& 2 Addl.Govt. Pleader)
O R D E R
SMT.P.RAMADEVI, PRESIDENT
The brief facts of the complaint are as follows.
That the complainant purchased gold ornaments from Deepa gold, Kanhangad on 17-01-2013 as per bill No.01455 and he received a lucky coupon No.1729085 as a part of Grand Kerala Shopping Festival Season. As per the instructions mentioned in the coupon the complainant sent the unique ID A447T to GKSF through SMS from his mobile phone. On 30-01-2013 he received a message from GKSF stating that the complainant is a winner of one sovereign of gold coin and for more details he can contact 1800 4255 2012. At that time the complainant came to know that his lucky coupon is lost. Then he contacted the above mentioned number and confirmed about the winner of one sovereign of gold coin and told them about the loosing of his lucky coupon. Then the GKSF instructed the complainant for getting the prize he has to submit an affidavit duly attested by a notary public and the original bill before the opposite party and the complainant did so. Thereafter there is no response from the side of opposite party. Then again and again the complainant contacted the opposite parties through telephone and at last on 21-03-2013 the opposite party sent a letter to the complainant stating that they can not give the prize since the coupon is lost. According to complainant in a similar case the opposite parties granted the prize. Hence this complaint is filed for granting the prize and compensation for mental agony.
2. Opposite parties appeared and filed their version. As per the version the opposite parties denied the allegations made against them by the complainant and submits that Grand Kerala Shopping Festival envisaged as an annual event, lasting for a particular period of every year and it is a project of Department of Tourism and Government of Kerala and Government of Kerala is a necessary party in the complaint. Opposite parties further submits that the prizes are offered only for the promotion of the business during the season and coupons are issued free of cost, no charges are levied on the coupons, hence the complainant will not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act as ‘Consumer’. The opposite parties further submitted that it is printed in the coupon issued to the customers that to claim the gift, the original coupon and purchase bill has to be provided. Therefore the 1st opposite party rightly denied the prize. The opposite parties further submits that opposite party No.2 is an unnecessary party to this complaint. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. No oral evidence adduced by both opposite parties. On the side of complainant Exts A1 to A4 marked. Heard the complainant. For opposite parties AGP filed notes of arguments.
4. On going through the entire facts of the case the only question to be answered is whether the complainant is entitled to get the prize or not?
Here the complainant submitted that in a similar case Farzeena V Government of Kerala and Others (WPC No 15883 of 2010) the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala directed the State and Director of Grand Kerala Shopping Festival to release the prize to the petitioner therein on condition that the petitioner execute a bond infavour of respondents to indemnify the loss if any, suffered an account of any rival claims.
The opposite parties contended that the complainant’s case and the WP(C) 15883/2010 are entirely different case. In the above case the Hon’ble High Court directed the opposite party to give the prize to the coupon holder. In that case the petitioner was selected by taking lot of the counter foil of the prize winning coupon which contains her full address and a letter has been sent to her and she received the letter and produced it as a proof. Here there is no counter foil or address and the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed for.
5. Here the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is having no counter foil or address is not sustained since in the above mentioned case the method of prizing is by taking lots. But in the present case the method of prizing is by sending SMS and from that SMS the winners are to be selected. Here the complainant sent SMS through his mobile phone and he received the message of winning the prize is through SMS. In this method no address is insisted by on condition that the petitioner execute a bond in favour of respondents to indemnify the lose if any, suffered an account of any rival claims.
6. The opposite parties contented that the complainant’s case and the WP(C) 15883/2010 are entirely different case. In the above case the Hon’ble High Court directed the opposite parties to give the prize to the coupon holder. In that case the petitioner was selected by taking lot from the counter foil, prize winning coupon which contains her full address and a letter has been sent to her and she received the letter and produced it as a proof. Here there is no counter foil or address and the complainant is not entitled for the relief claimed for.
7. Here the contention of the opposite parties that the complainant is having no counter foil or address is not sustained because in the above mentioned case the method of prizing is by taking lots. But in the present case the method of prizing is by sending SMS and from that SMS the winners are to be selected. Here the complainant sent SMS through his mobile phone and he received the message of winning the prize is through SMS. In this method no address is insisted by the opposite party. Moreover, the complainant produced Ext.A1 bill which was issued by Deepa Gold, Kanhangad and the opposite parties have no case that Deepa Gold has not issued prize coupon to complainant along with the bill. Moreover, the complainant was asked to produce the notarized affidavit stating the loosing of the original coupon. Moreover, there is no rival claimant for the said prize. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that complaint is genuine one and the complainant is entitled for the relief claimed.
Therefore the complaint is allowed directing the 1st opposite party to release the one sovereign of gold to the complainant on condition that the complainant executes a bond in fvaour of the 1st opposite party to indemnify the loss if any suffered on account of any rival claims. Both parties shall bear their respective costs. Time for compliance is 30 days from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1.17-01-2013 Photocopy of bill issued by Deepa Gold for an amount of Rs.17372/-
A2. Photocopy of affidavit
A3. 21-03-2013 letter sent by Director GKSF to complainant
A4. Copy of One sovereign gold coin winners.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
