BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD : THIRUVANANTHAPURAM PRESENT:
SHRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K. SREELA : MEMBER
O.P. No. 17/2005 Filed on 14/01/2005 Dated: 31..10..2009 Complainant: Rev. B. Devadanam, Church House, Ambilikonam, Ayira P.O., Parassala.
(By Adv. S.K. Pramod) Opposite parties:
M/s. Aqua Gel Chemicals Private Ltd., Village Versana, Taluk Anjar ( R ), Kach – 370 240. M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited, 165/166, Back pay Reclamation, Mumbai – 400 020.
(By Adv.V.K. Mohan Kumar)
This O.P having been heard on 16..09..2009, the Forum on 31..10..2009 delivered the following:
ORDER
SMT. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER:
Brief facts of the case are as follows:
The 1st opposite party is the manufacturer and the 2nd party is the distributor of toilet soap branded as 'Rexona'. The opposite parties launched a scheme named as 'Home Guarantee Offer' to the purchaser of the above mentioned soap. In order to attract the general public to promote the sale of the said product the said offer was widely advertised through various medias by the opposite parties offering a house worth Rs.5,00,000/- for the fortunate customers who will qualify for the same by buying the said soap as per the conditions in the advertisements. The conditions which was telecasted through the said advertisements is that a particular slogan "റെക്സോണ കൊണ്ട് മനോഹരമായ ചര്മ്മം, മനോഹരമായ വീട് ” tif found inside the wrapper of the toilet soap is entitled to a house worth Rs. 5,00,000/-. As one among the public, complainant who is also attracted by the advertisement of the opposite parties purchased 3 Rexona toilet soaps on 1/5/2004. Fortunately the complainant found appropriate slogan inside one of the wrapper in order to get prize offered by the opposite parties. Immediately on knowing the fact that he had won the prize the complainant tried to contact the concerned officers of the opposite parties to get the prize. On 11/5/2004 the complainant informed about the prize through E-mail to the opposite parties. Even after several communications there was no response from the side of the opposite parties. On 16/07/2004 the complainant issued a lawyer's notice to the opposite parties and demanded the prize as offered by them. To the said notice the 2nd opposite party issued a reply stating false facts and denied their liability to offer any prize or compensation. The complainant further stated that the opposite parties after offering prizes with the intention of not providing them as offered and intending only for the purpose of promoting the sale of their product by circulating false advertisement among general public is a clear case of unfair trade practice. 2. The 1st opposite party in this case M/s. Aqua Gel Chemicals Private Ltd remained ex-parte.
3. The 2nd opposite party M/s. Hindustan Lever Limited filed their version. The main contention of the 2nd opposite party is that the complainant is not a consumer. The said offer, being the House guarantee offer is only a Trade Scheme and it is not an intrinsic part of the contract deal for which the consideration is paid. The complainant has no case that, the soap allegedly purchased by him, suffers from any defect and therefore no action can lie before this Forum. As far as the alleged scheme winning is concerned, it cannot be said that the complainant is a consumer who had hired any service for consideration and hence he has no right to get redressal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The 2nd opposite party further submitted that they conducted the scheme called the “Rexona House Guarantee Offer” which was run on Rexona soap from February 2004 to 30th March 2004. The scheme was such that if the consumer found a particular slogan within the scheme, on the wrapper of Rexona soap, the consumer should register his name and other details in the prescribed manner with the 2nd opposite party. Every week a lucky winner from the correct entries, so registered will be chosen to get a house worth Rs. 5,00,000/-. The terms and conditions of the scheme are detailed in the advertisements. Opposite party stated that a customer who has not received the slogan mentioned in the advertisement and who has not complied with the terms and conditions is not eligible to claim any prize. The averments in the complaint will clearly show that the complainant is a person who is fully aware of the terms and conditions of the offer and that the complainant has not complied with the condition of the scheme. The opposite party stated that the slogan found inside the wrapper is not the prize winning slogan is clear from the advertisement produced before this Forum. The averment that the opposite party issued a reply stating false fact is incorrect. The 2nd opposite party has no liability to offer any prize or compensation to the complainant, as he is not entitled for any prize or compensation. The 2nd opposite party has detailed in the reply the reason which makes the claim of the complainant as invalid one. The opposite party further stated in the version that the opposite party has not run any scheme in the month of May. The 2nd opposite party also stated that they are not responsible for mental agony, pain and sufferings of the complainant if suffered any. Hence they prayed for dismissal of the complaint. 4. In this case the complainant has filed proof affidavit and examined as PW1 and he has produced 5 documents which were marked as Exts. P1 to P6. The 2nd opposite party also filed counter affidavit and examined him as DW1 and he has produced 3 documents which were marked as Exts. D1 to D3. 5. Points that would arise for consideration are: Whether the complainant is entitled to get the prize or not? Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service occurred from the side of opposite parties? Reliefs and costs?
6. Points (i) to (iii) : In this case to prove the contentions of the complainant he has produced 6 documents. The document marked as Ext. P1 is the wrapper of the Rexona Soap. In that document we can see the slogan that "റെക്സോണ കൊണ്ട് മനോഹരമായ ചര്മ്മം, മനോഹരമായ വീട് "”. Ext. P2 is the photocopy of the print out wherein E-mail intimation has been given to the opposite parties. Ext. P3 is the copy of lawyer's notice dated 16/7/2004 issued by the complainant to the opposite parties demanding the prize. Ext.P4 is the postal receipt of Ext.P3. Ext.P5 is the acknowledgment of the notice. Ext.P6 is the reply notice dated 13/8/2004. In that reply notice the opposite parties clearly stated the facts that the complainant purchased the product after the duration of the period. The award winning slogan found in the wrapper is different. The winning slogan, which entitled Rexona consumers to the prize was “with new Rexona win a new house” The opposite party also informed the winner's list to the complainant through the reply notice. The opposite party through evidences established their contentions that the complainant is not entitled to get the prize. The documents produced by the opposite party marked as Exts.D1 to D3. Ext.D1 is the wrapper of Rexona in which the prize winning slogan is continued. The prize winning slogan is with new Rexona win a new House (പുതിയ റെക്സോണ ഒപ്പം പുതിയ വീട് ). The slogan found in Ext.P1 is different from this slogan. Ext.D2 is the newspaper cutting in which the advertisement has been published. In this paper we can see the scheme details specifying the prize winning slogan and the period of scheme etc. As per this document the scheme ends on 30th March 2004. The complainant himself admitted that he had purchased the soap on 1/5/2004. Ext.D3 is the list of winners of Rexona House Guarantee Offer. From the pleadings, evidences and documents adduced by both parties we find that the complainant is not entitled to get the benefit under the scheme. The slogan found in the wrapper of the complainant is different from the prize winning slogan and the complainant purchased the soap after the termination of the scheme. Hence the complaint is dismissed.
In the result, complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the open Forum, this the 31st day of October, 2009. BEENA KUMARI. A., MEMBER.
G.SIVAPRASAD, PRESIDENT.
S.K. SREELA, ad. MEMBER. O.P. No.17/2005
APPENDIX
I. Complainant's witness:
PW1 : Rev. B. Devadanam. II. Complainant's documents:
P1 : Wrapper of the soap. P2 : Copy of E-mail letter sent to the opposite party. P3 : Copy of Advocate notice dated 16/7/2004 sent to the opp. Party. P4 : Two postal receipts dated 16/7/2004. P5 : Two acknowledgment cards P6 : Letter dated 13/8/2004 addressed to the complainant by the opposite party.
III. Opposite parties' witness:
DW1: Jikku George Jacob
IV. Opposite parties' documents: D1 : Newspaper cutting shows the advertisement in Malayala Manorama dated 01/02/2004. D2 : Newspaper cutting shows the advertisement in Malayala Manorama dated 11/2/2003. D3 : Winners list.
PRESIDENT.
| 
