A Rajesh, President.
The complainant’s case is as follows:
The 2nd opposite party had made wide advertisements offering prices worth 40 kgs. gold for the winners in the lucky draw from the consumers, who were purchasing goods from various shops all over Kerala for the period from 1st December 2008 to 15th January 2009. Attracted by the advertisements, the complainant purchased gold ornaments from the first opposite the party for Rs. 2,65,000/-. But the 1st opposite party refused to give the coupon for participating in the lucky drew stating that the second opposite party had not supplied sufficient numbers of coupons. On getting the above said information from the 1st opposite party, the complainant sent E-mails to Mr. Rahul and Smt. Neetu on 14-01-2009 and 16-01-2009, the persons who were in charge of the affairs of grand Kerala shopping Festival. But no action was taken by them to redress the grievance of the complainant. Due to the non-issuance of the coupon, the complainant lost his chance to participate in the lucky draw competition. So he suffered great mental agony and losses. The acts of the opposite parties amount to unfair trade practice. The complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the mental agony and losses suffered due to non-issuance of coupon. This complaint hence.
2. Version of the 1st opposite party
The averment of the complaint that the 2nd opposite party had made an advertisement offering prizes worth 40 kgms gold for the winners in the lucky draw from the consumers who were purchasing goods from various shops all over Kerala for the period from the 1st December 2008 to 15th January 2009 is true. It is a fact that the 1st opposite party has not made any such advertisement. The 1st opposite party, which is a partnership firm has made registration with the 2nd opposite party in Silver category, which is fully managed and controlled by the 2nd opposite party. The 1st opposite party has nothing to do with the offers given to the consumers by the 2nd opposite party since it was fully managed and controlled by the 2nd opposite party. The Grant Kerala Shopping Festival conducted by the 2nd opposite party stated in their advertisement that only 50 free gift coupons would be issued in the lucky draw conducted by them for those who registered under the silver category. But by the time when the complainant approached the 1st opposite party, all 50 coupons were supplied to the purchasers who had made purchase with the 1st opposite party prior to the complainant. The 1st opposite party requests to dismiss the complaint against them.
3. Despite service of notice from this Forum the 2nd opposite party opted not to contest the case for their own reasons. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 and A2 and B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the complainant and the 1st opposite party respectively. Heard the counsel for the contesting parties.
4. The only point that arose for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- from 1st the opposite parties?
5. Admittedly under the aegis of the 2nd opposite party Grand Kerala shopping Festival had been conducted from 1st December 2008 to 15th January 2009 evident from Ext. B3 advertisement. Under the scheme the business concerns registered in the scheme and the ultimate consumers were offered plenty of gifts and opportunity to participate in the lucky draw. Accordingly, the 1st opposite party registered their name in the festival by Ext. B1 application and paid a sum of Rs. 5,000/- for joining in silver category. In this category 50 lucky coupons were allotted to them.
6. According to the complainant, lured by the advertisement regarding the festival on 26/12/2008 the complainant visited the 1st opposite party’s shop and purchased gold as per Ext. A1 receipt for Rs. 2,65,000/-. It is stated that the 1st opposite party failed to hand over the festival coupons to the complainant. The 1st opposite party contended that they have received only 50 free gift coupons from the 2nd opposite party and the same were supplied to 50 purchasers and the complainant’s purchase was after the disbursement of the coupons. Further, they contend that they have nothing to do with the offers given to the consumer by the 2nd opposite party. Admittedly the grand Kerala shopping festival had been conducted by the 2nd opposite party. Nothing has forth come from the 2nd opposite party with regard to the denial of coupon to the complainant. Had the 2nd opposite party provided sufficient coupons as advertised by them the complainant would have got an opportunity to take part in the lucky draw in which he was curtailed.
7. The complainant allured by the advertisement of the 2nd opposite party and went to purchase gold from the 1st opposite party, but he was denied the opportunity to participate in the lucky draw. This clearly goes to show that there is deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opposite party due to Ext. B3 misleading advertisement which speaks for itself.
8. It is in human nature that one is carried away by high promises that even goes beyond reality. But that does not mean that one has to be blamed. But that does not also mean that having been carried away by such aspirations one cannot blame another. Here is a case of one such. Rule of law would not allow this Forum to transcend the ambit of such aspirations. A compensation of Rs. 5,000/- would meet the ends of justice squarely in this case with a frank consensus of contentions raised.
9. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct that the 2nd opposite party shall pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs. 5,000/- for the reasons stated above.
The above said order shall be complied with within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amount shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 30th day of June 2011
