DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 13th day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya.A., Member
: Sri. Krishnankutty.N.K.,Member
Date of filing:03/03/2021.
CC/40/2021
Vijeesh.T.R - Complainant
S/o Ramanarayanan
Thekkinkad House,Kottod,
Tholanur Post,Palakkad-678 722.
(Party in person)
Vs
1. Chief Manager - Opposite Parties
KSFE Kuzhalmannam Branch,
1st Floor, Saidev Arcade,Koduvayur Road,
Kuzhalmannam Post,Palakkad-678 702.
2. The Regional Manager
KSFE, Palakkad,
2nd Floor, Parayil Square,
Kandath Sudevan Road,
Sulthanpetta,Palakkad-678 001.
(By Adv.V.Mani)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya.A., Member
1. Pleadings of the complainant in brief
KSFE had announced attractive prizes in connection with their Golden Jubilee chitty in the year 2019. As per their advertisement, the winner will get 50 soverigns of gold and 2nd prize will be 5 soverign each to be given to 50 persons from their 13 regions. The complainant, on being attracted by their advertisement and prizes, joined the chitty with the 1st opposite party branch. The complainant got 2nd prize in the lottery conducted by the opposite party in co-ordination with Kerala State Lottery Department for the Palakkad region on 06/11/2020. The 1st opposite party has informed the complainant about the winning of the prize. Without the complainant’s consent, the opposite parties had given wide publicity about the prize winning through their face book page and through other medium. But the opposite parties, after deducting tax, paid only Rs.84,000/- to the complainant. This is deficiency in service on their part. So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to pay the price of 5 sovereign of gold as on 04/02/2021, the date on which the prize money was given to him or to give Rupees One Lakh as compensation for using his name in giving false advertisement without his knowledge. He also prays for directing the opposite parties to withdraw from publishing such false advertisements.
2. After admitting complaint, registered notices were issued to the opposite parties. The opposite parties entered appearance and filed their version.
3. The opposite parties, in their version, contended that complainant is not a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act and the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission as it relates to Prize Money. The opposite parties admits the averments in the complaint about their advertisement relating to Golden Jubilee and prizes offered in connection with that. They also admit that the complainant joined the chitty and got the 2nd prize of 5 sovereigns of gold in the lottery conducted by the opposite parties for Palakkad region. They have announced the prize money through their circular no. 27/2019(BD) dated 13/06/2019. As per the circular, bumper prize of 50 sovereigns of gold (Maximum Rs.12 Lakh) is to be given to one person( the winner) and the 2nd prize of 5 sovereign each(upto a maximum of Rs. 24,000/- for 1 sovereign of gold) to be given to 50 persons(of which Palakkad Region has 3 winners).The above advertisement was published in the notice boards of their branch offices.
The complainant won the 2nd prize in the lottery held in Palakkad region and he is entitled to get Rs.1,20,000/-( value of 5 sovereigns of gold). They have deducted 30% tax from the amount and had given Rs.84,000/- to the complainant. It is their legal duty to deduct the taxes from the prize money and to remit it with the Govt. There is no deficiency in service on their part. They have only published the chitty number and name of the prize winner. The complainant is not entitled to get the balance amount or Rs.1 Lakh as compensation from the opposite parties. So the complaint is to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties.
4. After filing of version by the opposite parties, issues were framed and it was posted for steps. But there was no representation from the part of the complainant continuously for the last 4 posting from 09/12/2021; So it was taken for orders based on merit.
The points arising for consideration are.
1. Whether there is any deficiency in service/Unfair Trade practice on the part of the opposite parties ?
2. Whether the complaint is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
3. Reliefs as to cost and compensation.
Points No.1, 2 & 3
5. Even though the complainant produced some documents along with the complaint, he did not file proof affidavit and the documents were not marked in evidence. The complainant has failed to prove his case by adducing cogent evidence.
Further we observe that in case of winnings from lotteries, tax has to be deducted from the prize money before paying it to the winner in accordance with the provisions of Section194B of the Income Tax Act.
According to Section 194B of Income Tax Act 1961, the person responsible for paying to any person any income by way of winnings from lotteries or crossword puzzles, an amount exceeding Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand) shall, at the time of payment thereof, deduct income tax thereon at the rates in force.
As per the opposite parties’ contention, it is clear that from the total prize money of Rs.1,20,000/-, 30% tax was deducted and Rs.84,000/- was given to the complainant . So there is no Deficiency in service on their part. The complainant not entitled to the reliefs claimed.
In the result complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 13th day of June, 2022
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya.A
Member
Sd/-
Krishnankutty.N.K
Member
