Haryana

StateCommission

A/566/2017

HINDUSTAN UNILEVER LTD. - Complainant(s)

Versus

RONKI RAM - Opp.Party(s)

ATUL AGGARWAL

11 Oct 2022

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

                                                      First Appeal No.566 of 2017

                                                 Date of Institution: 11.05.2017

                                                          Date of final hearing: 11.10.2022

Date of pronouncement: 30.12.2022

 

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. through its authorized representative Ms. Deepika Raikwar w/o Mr. Vineet Gera, having office at Plot No. B, Block No. A, South city-I, Delhi Jaipur Highway, Gurgaon-122001.

…..Appellants

Versus

1.      Ronki Ram-deceased and now represented by his LR’s & Ors.

1. Smt. Angoor Devi-widow
2. Bishan Chand-son
3. Santosh Kumar-son

R/o 152, Shakti Nagar, Dalip Garh, Ambala Cantt. Plot No. 9, Ward No. 3, Shakti Nagar, Dalip Garh, Ambala Cantt.

…..Respondents

2.      The Kharga Canteen No.1, Ambala Cantt. Through its General Manager.

…..Proforma Respondent

CORAM:    S.P. Sood, Judicial  Member

                    Suresh Chander Kaushik, Member

                   

Present:-    Mr. Ashim Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellants.

                   Mr. S.S. Antal, Advocate for the respondent.

 

                                                 ORDER

S P SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

          The present appeal No.566 of 2017 has been filed against the order dated 03.04.2017 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ambala (In short Now “District Commission”) in complaint case No.132 of 2007/2012, which was allowed.

2.       The brief facts of the case are that complainant being an army personell had purchased some grocery items from army canteen including a pack of Surf Excel 750 gm. Vide bill No. 082797 dated 16.11.2006 from OP No. 2.  Infact the manufacturers had floated scheme on the surf excel offering several prizes and the Ist prize was Rs.5.00 lacs scholarship for the child, if anyone scores 10/10 on the stained cloth found inside the pack after washing the same using this product. Complainant got 10/10 score after washing the stained cloth and visited OP No. 2 claiming the money where he met General Manager, Col. Bhardwaj, who after verifying the claim on toll free No. 1800-220-800 insisted him to send the original stained cloth to the quarters concerned. Complainant sent the same vide receipt No.2496 dated 21.12.2006 which was received by OP vide regn. No. 29512 but OP kept on delaying the matter. Faced with this situation, he sent legal notice dated 24.02.2007 to the OP for making the payment of Rs.5.00 lacs but no avail. Thus, there being deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps.

3.      OP No.2 was proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 25.05.2007. OP No.1 filed reply and raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability and jurisdiction. OP No. 1 submitted that scheme/promotional offer commenced on 21.08.2006 and closed on 28.02.2007 regarding purchase of Surf Excel, Quick Wash 500 g and 1.0 kg and Surf Excel Blue 500g., 750g & 1.5 kg. There was stained piece of cloth packed inside surf excel packets which after washing reveals score ranging from 1/10 to 10/10 and any consumer who get 10/10 swatch alongwith unique code will be qualified  to be the contender for the high value price of 5.00 lacs.  They already have had two winner of Rs.5.00 lac scholarsip. Ms. Pragathee from Kranail, Tamil Nadu and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dey Sarkar from Kolkata under 10/10 scheme to whom the scholarship of Rs.5.00 lacs was actually paid by Hindustan Lever Ltd.   Legal notice was duly replied by OP No. 1 on 02.04.2007 and mechanics of the scheme of the contest was clearly explained to him. Thus, there being no deficiency in service on the part of the OP No. 1 and requested to dismiss the complaint.

4.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Commission, Ambala has allowed the complaint vide order dated 03.04.2017, which is as under:-

“In view of the above facts of the case, complaint is hereby allowed with costs, which is assessed to Rs.10,000/-. The OP No. 1 is directed to comply with the following directions within thirty days from receipt of copy of the order:-

1. OP No. 1 is directed to pay Rs.5,00,000/-(Rs. five lacs) with compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.one lac) to the complainant within stipulated period. However, if OP No. 1 failed to pay the prize amount along with compensation amount within prescribed time frame, then complainant shall have a right to recover the prize amount along with interest @9% per annum from the date of order till actual realization.
2. Also to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs.”

5.      Feeling aggrieved therefrom, O.P No. 1-appellant has preferred this appeal.

6.      This arguments have been advanced by Sh. Ashim Aggarwal, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Sh. S.S. Antal, learned counsel for respondent. With their kind assistance the entire record of appeal as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever evidence has been led on behalf of  both the parties has also been properly perused and examined.

7.      It is true that the scheme/promotional offer commenced on 21.08.2006 and closed on 28.02.2007 on purchase of Surf Excel, Quick Wash 500 g and 1.0 kg and Surf Excel Blue 500g., 750g & 1.5 kg.   It is also admitted that the complainant had purchased surf excel 750 gm vide bill NO.082797 dated 16.11.2006 from the army canteen.  As planned there was stained cloth packed inside surf excel packets which after washing will reveal the  score ranging from 1/10 to 10/10 and a consumer who get 10/10 swatch alongwith unique code was supposed to be qualified  to be the contender for the high value price of 5.00 lacs.  Ms. Pragathee from Kranail, Tamil Nadu and Mr. Sunil Kumar Dey Sarkar from Kolkata were already the winners under 10/10 scheme to whom the scholarship of Rs.5.00 lacs was actually paid by Hindustan Lever Ltd. 

8.       As per the terms and conditions of surf excel 10/10  contest scheme of OP NO.2, the complainant had dispatched the original stained cloth through regd post., which was duly received by OP No.1.  Undisputedly, the complainant obtained 10/10 marks.  OP No.1 admitting the price money of Rs.5/- lacs have already been given to two persons. It means that if the person have obtained 10/10 marks in competition, he would be entitled for the prize of Rs.Five lacs. Therefore as complainant had actually scored 10/10 and has also complied with other terms and conditions governing this scheme, so learned District Commission has rightly allowed the claim of the complainant and was fully justified in allowing this complaint.

9.                Resultantly, the contentions raised on behalf of the present appellant stands rejected having rendered no assistance and found to be untenable and the order passed by the learned District Commission does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and is well reasoned and accordingly stands maintained for all intents and purposes.  Hence,  the appeal  stands dismissed.

10.    The statutory amount of Rs.25,000/- deposited at the time of filing the appeal be refunded to the complainant-respondent No1 against proper receipt and identification in accordance with rules, after the expiry of period of appeal/revision, if any.

11.     Applications pending, if any stand disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment.

12.      A copy of this judgement be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986/2019. The judgement be uploaded forthwith on the website of the commission for the perusal of the parties.

13.    File be consigned to record room.

Date of pronouncement: 30^th December, 2022

 

           

 

                        (Suresh Chander Kaushik)                                  (S. P. Sood)                                      Member                                                                        Judicial Member                            

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)