(Delivered on 18/07/2018)

Per Mr. S.B. Sawarkar, Hon’ble Member

1.      The present  appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Amravati in complaint No. 136/2012 dated 22/11/2013 granting the complaint partly and directing the opposite party (in short O.P.) to provide  the  “Nano”  named car  in the span of  90 days from the date of the order and the complainant  to provide  the charges  required  for the vehicle.  If the  complainant  does not want the car then  the O.P.  to provide  the cost of new car to the  complainant  in the same  span of period. No order as to the cost.

2.      The complainant  in short  filed a complaint that  she purchased  petrol  on 29/12/2011 through  the credit  card from O.P. No. 1  who gave her  a reward scheme coupon to be filled by her. She filled  the coupen  in the reward scheme called  “Tyoharoki Saugat Upaharo Ki Barsat” in short  TSUB. She put  the filled  coupen  in to the  box kept  there.

          The complainant  submitted that  the draw of the  scheme  was  done on 03/02/2012 and  she got the  first price of car  and also received a telephone  from O.P. No. 1 confirming it.  On 04/02/2012 her  husband and father  when  made enquiry  with O.P.No. 1 it was told that  the information  is correct and  she is  likely to get  a car of  Chevrolet company costing  15  to 18 lacs.  Her father  went to Nagpur in the  company of O.P.No. 2 and was told that  she would get  a beautiful car in the span of 1 to 2 months.

          The complainant  submitted that  she received a letter from the O.P.   No. 2 confirming the  reward of car  and was asked to  deposit  the reward tax  of Rs. 42,900//- by  D.D. However,  there was no information  regarding the  make of the car. Hence,  she suspected  the letter. Therefore, sent a letter on 11/05/2012 to  O.P.Nos. 1&2  asking  clarification . She received a reply on 14/05/2012 but  there was  no clarification . She received  further  letter on 13/06/2012 in which  a Nano car was mentioned  costing  Rs. 143000/- with  the scheme duration of  31/12/2012.

          The complainant  holding  the letter  to be  deficiency in service  filed a complaint  before the learned  Forum asking  the cost of the car of Rs. 18,00,000/-,  Rs. 60,000/- for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 15,000/- as cost of compliant  totaling to Rs. 18,75,000/-.

3.      On notice the O.Ps.  appeared and countered the complaint  claiming  the complainant  to be  not a consumer as  the complainant  has  not paid  any  consideration  for the  lucky draw.  Further  claimed that  the lucky draw coupon has mentioned that  the legal  action  would be  in the jurisdiction of  Mumbai area and  can not  be in the jurisdiction  of  Amravati District Forum.

          The O.P.No. 2 submitted that  they had started the TSUB. However,  the complainant  had not filled   the petrol  hence,  denied the complaint. However, submitted that  as per rules of the draw the winner  has to  pay the  taxes and insurance  to get the car which  the complainant  did not  submit.  Hence,  now  the winner  cannot get the benefit  as the scheme period is over.

          The complainant  had  filled the coupon and put it in the box but the vehicle  in which  the petrol was filled  was in the name of  her father and credit card  was of  her husband.  The  O.P. has replied to the notice  on 16/04/2012. Hence,  the O.P.No. 2 denied  deficiency in service.

4.      The learned Forum heard both the parties and held that  the complainant  is a   consumer of  O.P.Nos. 1&2 as  the  petrol is  put  in the vehicle of  her father and  is paid  by her  husband.  The complaint  is admissible  though  filed through  the power  of attorney given to her father.  The complainant was not told the make of the car but  when she sent  the notice,  she was informed about the  car to be Nano and was asked to deposit  Rs. 42,900/- for tax and insurance.  There is no evidence to show that  she was assured of the car of  Chevrolet company of  the demanded amount.  Hence,  she cannot ask the car of  a particular  company. Thus,  the learned Forum passed the order supra.

5.      Aggrieved against the order the complainant through   the power of attorney of her father filed an appeal hence, is referred as appellant.  The original O.P. Nos. 1&2 are referred as respondent Nos. 1&2.  The respondent  No. 1 appeared through  their representative  and  respondent No. 2 also appeared  through  the  representative.  However,  the respondents did not file any  written notes of argument.

6.      The power of attorney holder submitted that the  appellant  was given the  coupon for the scheme and  she also received  the telephone and also  the letter that  she has  won  in the  draw.  The coupon of the scheme shows a bumper  price and  a photo of a car which is like a Chevrolet car. Hence,  the  respondents are bound to  provide the  Chevrolet car by floating  such scheme. The respondents have cheated the appellant  and  have made her  make  lot many  trips  to the  Court causing her a  heavy  expenditure. Hence,  the respondents needs to be directed to provide her  the car showed in the photograph of the  coupon without  any cost.

7.      We heard  appellant’s power of attorney at length. Inspected  coupon  and the letter  sent to her  by  respondent No. 2 informing her  to claim the Nano car by paying the regular taxes  and other  expenditure of Rs. 42,900/-.

8.      We find that  the  appellant  was given the  coupon  after  filling  of  petrol  by her husband  in the vehicle  which was  in the name of her father.  Hence,  she had  certainly  satisfied  the  condition of  payment of consideration  to enter the  draw in the price of the  petrol and is a beneficiary  to be  the consumer of  respondent No. 1 who was  selling the petrol of the respondent  No. 2. The respondent No. 2 had floated the scheme in which  the appellant  received the  first  price of the car though  it cannot be specifically  defined  as to  which  car was proposed  to be given.  Still  what ever car the  respondents had  defined it needs to have been given to the  appellant. After the winning of the prize then  asking  appellant  to provide  the part payment  for taxes  and other things  is a definite  deficiency  in service and unfair trade practice.

9.      It was incumbent upon the respondent Nos. 1&2 to prepare a proper coupon with  proper  conditions  and  could have  got it  filled  properly  by recording  proper  name upon it with all facts  and assurances  made clear.  Which  they have not done. Hence, the respondents now deserve to provide the car to the appellant  without  asking for  any additional charges.

10.    We find that  the learned Forum has passed  a correct order in the circumstances prevalent  in the present  complaint and draw. However,  the order needs to  be modified by deleting  the directions given for  payment  of part expenditure by the   appellant  in  clause No. 2 of the impugned order.  Also  it is  a reward in the draw hence, there cannot be any choice to the appellant to accept  the  price in lieu of the car.  She also deserves to get the  compensation  for physical and mental harassment . Hence, we pass the order as below.

ORDER

i.        The appeal  is partly allowed

ii.       The order of the learned Forum is confirmed with  following  modification.

a.      The  second part  of  submission of charges  and  acceptance of same  by the appellant  directed in  clause No. 2 of operative part  of  impugned order is modified and substituted  with  the direction that the O.P.Nos. 1&2 severally or together  deliver  to complainant the New Nano car after bearing   of  all the  costs , insurance  and other  charges,  in the span of 30 days  from the date of the receipt of  this order. In  case failure,  to pay  to the complainant   Rs. 50/- per day as  rent till the final  delivery  of the vehicle to the complainant.   

b.      The direction  given in  clause No. 3 of  operative part of  impugned order about no cost is set aside

c.       The   respondent Nos. 1&2 together or severally  to pay Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant  as compensation for physical and mental  harassment .

d.      The  respondent Nos. 1&2 to pay  Rs. 10,000/- to the appellant  as  cost of the complaint & appeal .

iii.      The order  be complied  by the respondent  No. 1&2 in the span of  30 days  from the  date of  the receipt of the order.

iv.      Copy of order be provided to both the parties, free of cost.