By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Brief facts of the case:-<br /> Complainant happened to see an advertisement of Rexona soap on Television which said, “Buy Rexona - own a house.” As per the offer, if the slogan inside the wrapper of the soap matched with the slogan announced on T.V., the prize which is a house worth Rs.5,00,000/- can be won. Complainant purchased soap from the shop of first opposite party and started collecting the wrappers. On one such wrapper the slogan besides stating the quality of the soap included the statement, “A house of your own”. This statement was absent in other wrappers collected by complainant. Highly excited complainant approached first opposite party and enquired about the procedure to get the prize. First opposite party informed that he had no knowledge of any such offer and directed him to approach second opposite party who is the distributing agent of the soap. After much effort complainant traced the address of second opposite party and enquired what he should do to get the prize. Second opposite party also denied any knowledge about the offer and directed complainant to enquire with the Company. Complainant obtained the address of 3rd and 4th opposite parties with much difficulty and issued letters to the Company. There was no reply. He alleges that though opposite parties advertised the offer through T.V., they failed to mention the period of the offer and the procedure to receive the prize upon the wrappers. Complainant alleges unfair trade practice and claims the prize as offered by the scheme. He prays for compensation for mental agony and hardships. Hence the complaint.<br /> <br /> 2. First opposite party filed a separate version putting forward a blanket denial of the whole thing. It is stated that first opposite party does not know whether complainant has purchased anything from his shop. Since complainant has not mentioned in the complaint 1st opposite party's name or names of other employees of shop, it can be understood that the complaint is only an outcome of imagination of the complainant. It is also stated that he does not know anything about the offer or it's conditions.<br /> <br /> 3. First opposite party has again filed a version jointly along with second opposite party reiterating the contentions put forward by third and fourth opposite parties in the version filed by them.<br /> <br /> 4. A joint version was filed by third and fourth opposite parties. They deny complainant to be a consumer and dispute the jurisdiction of this Forum to try the complaint. Opposite parties admit that they did conduct a scheme called 'Rexona Home Guarantee Offer' which was run on Rexona soap from 01-02-04 to 30-3-04. The scheme was such that if the purchaser of the soap found a particular slogan fixed within the scheme, inside the wrapper of Rexona soap, he should register his name and details, in the manner prescribed by the company. Every week a draw is conducted among persons so registered, and the lucky winner of this draw will win the prize, which is a house worth Rs.5,00,000/-. The slogan which entitles a person to register his name for the lucky draw is “WITH NEW REXONA, WIN A NEW HOUSE”. The slogan is printed inside the wrapper in English, Malayalam, Tamil, Telugu and Kannada. The slogan printed inside the wrapper of the soap purchased by complainant does not match with the prize winning slogan fixed by the company. Therefore complainant is not entitled to the prize as per the scheme. The other allegations are denied as false and prays to dismiss the complaint with costs.<br /> <br /> 5. Evidence consists of affidavit filed by complainant and a joint affidavit filed by third and fourth opposite parties. Ext.sA1 to A8 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 to B6 marked on behalf of opposite parties. First and second opposite parties have not filed any affidavit.<br /> <br /> 6. Points that arise for consideration:- <br /> (i) Whether complainant is a consumer. <br /> (ii) Whether this Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint. <br /> (iii) Whether opposite parties have committed unfair trade practice. <br /> (iv) Reliefs and costs.<br /> 1.<br /> 7. Point (i):- Opposite parties deny the complainant to be a consumer contending that any consideration paid by him is only for the purchase of the soap. The complaint is filed with regard to an offer that was made by opposite parties as a trade scheme. No consideration has been paid separately by complainant to participate in this scheme. That the said scheme is only a trade scheme and it is not an intrinsic part of the contract deal for which complainant has paid consideration and hence complainant is not a consumer. We are unable to accept this contention raised by opposite parties for the simple reason that the offer is intrinsic to the purchase of Rexona soap. Even though nothing extra is charged for participating in the scheme, the offer is open to every person who purchases the soap paying the price. In our view the offer is neither independent nor without consideration. We therefore hold complainant is a consumer and complaint is maintainable.<br /> <br /> 8. Point(ii):- Jurisdiction of this Forum to try the complaint is disputed contending that third and fourth opposite parties do not have offices within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum and that no part of cause of action arose within the limits of this Forum. Complainant contends to have purchased the soap from the shop of first opposite party whose shop is within the limits of this Forum. Second opposite party also conducts business within the district limit of this Forum. Second opposite party is the distributing agent of 3rd and 4th opposite parties. For these reasons we find this Forum has jurisdiction to try the complaint. Point found in favour of complainant.<br /> <br /> 9. Point (iii):- The main grievance of the complainant is that opposite parties denied him the prize as per the Home Guarantee Offer even though the slogan inside the wrapper of Rexona soap purchased by him from the shop of first opposite party matched with the slogan advertised on T.V. Opposite parties dispute the purchase of soap by complainant. Ext.A1 is the wrapper of the soap containing the alleged prize winning slogan. Even though the purchase of soap is disputed, opposite parties have not adduced any contra evidence to disprove the purchase as put forward by complainant. First opposite party, the proprietor of the shop has not even filed any affidavit. We therefore conclude that complainant did purchase Rexona soap from the shop of first opposite party. Complainant contends that the slogan printed inside Ext.A1 wrapper matches with the slogan advertised through T.V and hence he is entitled to get the prize. Third and fourth opposite parties resists this claim contending that the slogan in Ext.A1 wrapper does not match with the prize winning slogan which is “WITH NEW REXONA, WIN A NEW HOUSE. In Malayalam it is “പുതിയ െക്സോണ.. ഒപ്പം പുതിയ വീട്“. On perusal of Ext.A1 the slogan printed inside is, “SKIN SILKIER THAN SILK, AND A HOUSE OF YOUR OWN” In Malayalam it is printed “പട്ടിനേക്കാള്‍ പട്ടുപോലുള്ള ചര്‍മ്മം. സ്വന്തമായൊരു വീട്“. The slogan is printed in other languages also. According to complainant the slogan in Ext.A1 wrapper matched with the slogan published through T.V. It is also submitted that on the wrapper it is stated that the slogan inside should match the slogan on T.V. There is no evidence before us as to what was the slogan published through T.V. To prove what is the prize winning slogan fixed by the Company opposite parties relied on Ext.B2 and B3 which are news papers bearing the advertisement of the Home Guarantee Offer. Ext.B2 is the Malayala Manorama daily dated, 01-02-04. Ext.B3 is the Malayala Manorama daily dated, 15-02-04. The slogan published in these advertisements read as “പുതിയ െക്സോണ.. ഒപ്പം പുതിയ വീട്“. Counsel for complainant submitted that Ext.B2 and B3 are Editions of the newspaper of a different district and that advertisements of the prize winning slogan was not published by print media in this district of Malappuram. To prove this complainant relies upon Ext.A4 to A6 which are newspapers circulated in this district during the relevant dates. It was strongly argued by counsel for complainant that since opposite parties did not publish prize winning slogan by print media in this district, complainant had to rely upon the slogan published by the Company on T.V. We are unable to accept this contention since complainant has not tendered any evidence as to what was the slogan published by electronic media. Undisputedly the slogan inside Ext.A1 wrapper does not match the slogan published in Ext.B2 and B3. Even though the idea/meaning conveyed in both slogans are similar the words of the slogan do not match in its' entirety. Therefore we have no hesitation to conclude that complainant is not entitled to the prize of a house worth Rs.5,00,000/- as offered by the scheme.<br /> <br /> 10. At the time of hearing counsel appearing for complainant Sri.Zainul Abideen argued that the slogan in Ext.A1 wrapper is misleading and is intended to create confusion in the minds of ordinary consumers. He placed reliance on Ext.A2 and Ext.A3 series of wrappers. Ext.A2 series are nine Rexona soap wrappers and Ext.A3 series are 32 Rexona soap wrappers produced by complainant. Ext.A3 series of wrappers do not contain any slogan and are blank inside. On the outside of Ext.A2 wrappers it is printed in red column as “Home Guarantee Offer”. Inside of Ext.A2 wrappers different slogans are printed as noted under:-<br /> <br /> (1) REXONA GIVES BEAUTY TO YOUR SKIN AND TO YOUR LIFE.<br /> 2) NEW REXONA GIVES YOU GLOWING SKIN AND A GLOWING FUTURE.<br /> (3) HEAVEN FOR YOUR BODY – REXONA WAY TO YOUR HOME. <br /> <br /> These slogans entirely vary by words and meaning from the prize winning slogan. But the words and meaning of the slogan printed inside Ext.A1 is such that it has some resemblance to the prize winning slogan and to the whole idea conveyed by the offer. It is capable of misleading a common man. Advertisements and related publications must be clear enough to the level of understanding of the common man. Companies should keep away from fooling or juggling with the mind of an ordinary consumer. Dubious and equivocal advertisements and connected publications should not be issued to mislead the consumer and make him run about with high expectations. The complainant in the present case cannot be blamed if he felt cheated. The number of wrappers collected and produced by complainant illustrates how consumers are allured by advertisements which offer prizes and gifts. Further, upon Ext.A1 and A2 wrappers it is printed that the slogan inside should match the slogan announced on T.V. If that be so opposite parties are bound to produce what was the slogan announced on T.V. and how far it is different from that printed in Ext.A1. Opposite parties now rely upon the slogan published by print media. It can reasonably be inferred that such published statements are cautious efforts to mislead the consumer and create confusion in his mind. We have to accept the argument raised by counsel for complainant that the statements printed in Ext.A1 wrapper are misleading which amounts to unfair trade practice. We therefore find third and fourth opposite parties guilty of unfair trade practice.<br /> <br /> 11. Point (iv):- In the complaint the prayer is to direct opposite parties to give him the prize offered as per the scheme and compensation for mental agony and hardships. In the affidavit complainant has quantified his compensation as Rs.1,00,000/- along with interest and costs. Complainant was initially conducting the case by himself and only after filing the version has he engaged a lawyer to represent him. Complainant has stated in detail the hardships he had to undergo to in making enquires as to how to receive the prize. First opposite party has been unhelpful and the irresponsible attitude of the vendor towards the consumer is candid from the version filed by him where he puts forward a total denial without any basis. Only after complainant registered a petition with the Chief Ministers Public Grievance Cell did opposite parties issue reply to his letter. It dismays us that a consumer has to cross so much hurdles even to get a negative reply. Companies while launching prize schemes as part of promotion of trade or business must see that all vendors and distributors are sufficiently informed about the scheme so that the claim of prize if any is made hazzle free. The rule of 'caveat emptor' has given way to the present rule of 'caveat venditee' and the consumer has to given proper and sufficient information about any commodity offered for sale. No commodity shall be presented, marketed and advertised in a manner that is likely to mislead the purchasers. This misleading can be construed as lacking in transparency. In our view a compensation of Rs.15,000/- which is to be paid by 3rd and fourth opposite parties would serve justice to the complainant. We consider that first opposite party is liable to pay costs of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.<br /> <br /> 12. In the result we partly allow the complaint and order Third and Fourth opposite parties to jointly and severally pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand only) to the complainant along with costs of Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand only). We also order that first opposite party shall pay to the complainant costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees Two thousand only). The time limit for compliance of this order is fixed as two months from the date of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 7th day of May, 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> itness examined on the side of the complainant : Nil <br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.A1 to A8<br /> Ext.A1 : Wrapper of the soap containing alleged prize winning slogan.<br /> Ext.A2 seri : Wrapper (9 nos.) of the Rexona soap with slogans. <br /> Ext.A3 series: Wrapper (30 nos.) of the Rexona soap without slogans. <br /> Ext.A4 : Kozhikkode Edition Mathrubhumi Daily dated, 01-02-04.<br /> Ext.A5 : Kozhikkode Edition Mathrubhumi Daily dated, 02-02-04.<br /> Ext.A6 : Photo copy of the Malayala Manorama Daily 9th page dated,<br /> 01-02-04.<br /> Ext.A7 : Photo copy of the Malayala Manorama Daily 9th page dated,<br /> 02-02-04.<br /> Ext.A8 : Malayala Manorama Calender for the year 2004.<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : Nil<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.B1 to B6<br /> <br /> Ext.B1 : Photo copy of the wrapper of the Rexona soap. <br /> Ext.B2 : Malayala Manorama Daily dated. 01-02-04 bearing the<br /> advertisement of the Home Guarantee Offer.<br /> Ext.B3 : Malayala Manorama Daily dated. 15-02-04 bearing the<br /> advertisement of the Home Guarantee Offer.<br /> Ext.B4 : True & xerox copy of the Power of Attorney in favour of Mr.Ganesh<br /> Parameswaran dated, 06-11-07.<br /> Ext.B5 : Authorization letter dated, 22-2-2008 in favour of Mr.M.A.Joseph,<br /> Legal Executive.<br /> Ext.B6 : Photo copy of Fresh Certificate of Incorporation Consequent upon <br /> change of Name dated, 11-6-2007.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> E. AYISHAKUTTY, MEMBER<br />