M/s ITC Hotel Kakatiya Sheraton & Towers organized a New Year Event “Bonjour 05” on the New Year’s Eve on December 31, 2004 at its premises.  They promised through newspaper advertisements that the participants in the event apart from having a chance to win prizes, had an opportunity to win a Toyota Corrolla Car.  Complainant/petitioner was declared as successful in the Toyota Corrolla Car prize in the lucky dip draw and the model key for

-2-

the car was handed over to him with a promise to handover the car within three days after completion of formalities.  Due to delay in giving the prize, petitioner approached respondent No.2 who informed that due to mistake, the name of the other winner of the event, namely Mr. Naresh Tibrewal was not declared and that the petitioner has to share the prize with the another winner, otherwise the matter would end up in complications involving cancellation of the draw itself.  Complainant agreed to accept half of the value of the car.  Petitioner waqs handed over two cheques of Rs.3,20,595/- each towards part payment of the amount due to the complainant as prize money.  On presentation of the said cheques, the same were dishonoured for the reason ‘Insufficient Funds’ in the Account.  Complainant informed respondent No.2 about the bouncing of the cheques and was paid a sum of Rs.2 Lacs.  Remaining balance was promised to be paid within a few days which was not done.  Aggrieved by this, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.

-3-

          District Forum allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000/- to the complainant jointly and severally with interest @12% p.a. from 31.12.2005 till realization.  Rs.5,000/- were awarded as litigations costs.

          Aggrieved by the order passed by District Forum, respondents filed separate appeals before the State Commission.  The State Commission partly allowed the appeals and restricted the liability of opposite parties to Rs.2,37,500 with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.2.2005.  Under the orders, opposite party No.2 was to Rs.37,500/- with interest @ 9% p.a. from 1.2.2005 and opposite party No.1 was to pay Rs.2,37,500/- to the petitioner. 

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was the only winner and, therefore, entitled to get the entire prize money; that Naresh Tibrewal was introduced subsequently to do a favour to him.   We are not inclined to accept the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner.  Petitioner having accepted half the prize money cannot be allowed now to abrogate and contend that he is entitled to

-4-

get the entire prize money being the sole winner of the lucky draw.  The State Commission has done substantial justice between the parties.  No merits.  Dismissed.