The case of complainant is that he noticed a general offer in Mathrubhoomi, Mangalam etc. regarding an Exchange Mela. The gist of the general offer is whoever enters the Exchange Pavilion with the vehicle meant for exchange gets 4 gms. of gold whether vehicle was exchanged or not. Accordingly the complainant took his KL-8-857 Yamaha motor cycle to the pavilion on the 6^th April 2006 at 10.50 and informed the authorities present there the intention of him that he wants the vehicle exchanged with ‘Star City’. The authorities on behalf of the respondent examined the vehicle records and the vehicle. They told the complainant that the vehicle will fetch Rs.1500/- and it was not agreeable to the complainant. He demanded 4 grams of gold but was refused by the respondent. Hence this complaint.

 

            2. The counter is as follows: The complaint is filed with experimental basis. It is true that the respondent made advertisement regarding the exchange mela. The respondent conducted draw by putting coupon which were distributed to the persons who were attended in the exchange mela and 4 grams of gold given as totally free. The complaint is filed by misunderstanding the advertisement. It is unbelievable that the complainant has participated in the exchange mela. If he has participated in the mela he would have filled the coupon. There is no cause of action against this respondent. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is there any unfair trade practice committed by the respondent?

(2)   If so reliefs and costs.

 

            4. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 to P4 and Ext. R1.

 

            5. Points-1 & 2: According to the complainant, he has noticed an advertisement in Mathrubhoomi and Mangalam regarding the Exchange Mela conducted by the respondent. He has stated that the gist of the general offer is whoever enters the Exchange Pavilion with the vehicle meant for exchange gets 4 grams of gold whether the vehicle was exchanged or not. He went to the mela with his Yamaha motor cycle as per the general offer. He intimated his intention to the authorities concerned but was refused by them.

 

            6. In the counter respondent stated that the gold coin offer was to those persons who were participated in the exchange mela and filled up a coupon and will select a winner from participants. According to them, the complainant never approached to the pavilion either to participate or to participate in the lot. 

 

            7. Ext. P1 is the brochure produced by the complainant stating that “     (in Malayalam words)                  

 

                                                                                                                                           

There is a star sign after the letter gold coin and in the brochure it is explained that “     (In Malayalam words)     

 

                                                                                                                                          

 

 

A coupon is also attached with the brochure shows that “           (In Malayalam words)                                                             

 

 

                                                                                                                                                 

    (Malayalam words)                                                                               .” There is a star sign on the coupon after the letters “free” and on the side of the coupon it is explained that by conducting lot they are distributing 4 grams of gold coin. In Ext. P2 copy of Mangalam newspaper daily produced by the complainant there is also the news about the exchange mela. In which it is also stated that the winners are entitled for gold coin. So from the newspaper there is nothing to misunderstand that gold coin is available for those who are visiting the pavilion with vehicle for exchange mela or not. In the complaint he has stated that he has noticed an advertisement in Mathrubhoomi and Mangalam. Ext. P1 brochure produced by the complainant does not reveal the source from where it was obtained to the complainant. There is something misunderstanding in Ext. P1. But the complainant produced along with the brochure a coupon in which it is explained particularly about the lot. Moreover the complainant stated that as per notice in Mathrubhoomi and Mangalam he has come to know the advertisement.. He has produced the Mangalam daily. There is nothing stated as stated by the complainant. 

 

            8. According to the complainant he has visited the pavilion and intimated his intention. But there is no evidence to show that he has participated in the lot. In the complaint there is no whisper about the availability of coupon to the complainant. He has no case that he has filled the coupon and participated in the lot. But he has produced Ext. P1 coupon. To whom it was issued not explained. So according to us there is no unfair trade practice committed by the respondent. 

 

 

            9. In the result, complaint stands dismissed.