THE DISTRICT CONSUMER’S FORUM: KURNOOL

Present: Sri.Y.Reddappa Reddy, M.A., L.L.M., President,

And

Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, B.A., B.L., Lady Member

Tuesday the 24^th day of February, 2015

C.C.No.96/2012

Between:

Babu Basha @ Babu,

S/o Gaffor Miah,

H.No.33/28, Chittari Street,

Gadda,  Kurnool-518 001.                                             …Complainant

-Vs-

1.       The Proprietor,

          K.Narayana Murthy and Sons,

D.No.40/29, Park Road, Kurnool-518 001.

2.       The Marketing Manager

          Indian Oil Corporation (Government of India understanding),

          Divisional Office, D.No.8-115/1, First Floor,

          M.M. Complex, R.C. Road, Royal Nagar,

          Tirupati-517 501.                                         …OPPOSITE    PARties

This complaint is coming on this day for orders in the presence of Sri.P.Siva Sudarshan, Advocate for complainant and Sri.P.V.Sudhakara Reddy, Advocate for opposite    parties 1 and 2 and upon perusing the material papers on record, the Forum made the following.               

                                                                                                        ORDER

(As per Smt. S.Nazeerunnisa, Lady Member,)

      C.C. No.96/2012

1.       This complaint is filed under section 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying:-

1. To directing the opposite    parties immediately deliver the prize car to complainant.

(OR)

To direct the opposite parties to pay cost of the Indica Car.

2. To direct the opposite    parties to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards mental agony and financial loss.
3. To grant the cost of the complaint.

4. To grant any other relief as the Honourable Forum deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2.    The facts of the complainant in brief is as under:- The opposite party No.1 is the proprietor of Indian Oil Corporation Fuel filling station, Park road, Kurnool. Opposite party No.2 is the marketing manager of Indian Oil Corporation, Tirupathi.  The opposite parties advertised in News Papers and petrol bunks offered the customers that who purchased the worth of Rs.200/- petrol opposite parties issued a coupon, after the festival of Sankranti, draw tickets and lucky winner is entitled to receive Indica Car from the opposite    parties.  The complainant attracted the offer and purchased Rs.210.49 % petrol from opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.1 issued coupon bearing No.137969 and the complainant filled it and counter foil is put in opposite party No.1, lucky coupon box.  On 08.02.2011 the complainant received a phone call from opposite party No.2 cell No.9490958101 and informed that the complainant is the winner of the car and asked to produce the original coupon.  The complainant also received a letter dated 10.03.2011 from opposite party No.2 along with Xerox copy of the coupon.  As the complainant lost or misplaced his original coupon, he send the affidavit and house supply card for his identity and requested to deliver the prize car.  The complainant requested the opposite parties relating to the prize car through E.mails and SMS.  The opposite parties did not respond.  The opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice and there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence this complaint.

3.       Written Version filed on behalf of opposite party No.1 stating that the complaint is neither just nor tenable under law or on facts.  It is submitted that the complainant did not produce the bill to prove that he had purchased the petrol from this opposite party No.1 only.  There are more than five Indian Oil Corporation petrol Bunks at Kurnool.  The complainant never requested this opposite    party No.1 nor sent the ‘E-mail’s relating to the alleged prize car.  This complaint against opposite party No.1 is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed. 

          Written Version filed on behalf of opposite party No.2 stating that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts.  It is submitted that the lucky draw was conducted on 17.01.2011, the coupon was drawn one after another to avoid multiple lucky draws.  The complainant is at S.No.6 to win the car, opposite party No.2 informed the same to the complainant to bring the coupon A137969 at the office of opposite party No.2 Tirupathi for verification.  The persons at serial No.1, 2, 3 were not attended and not produce the original coupon. The person at Serial Number 4 was attended and produced the original coupon and won the car.  But the complainant is not claiming the said coupon as his coupon, as per his SMS and E-Mail’s the coupon number is 31819.  Hence the complainant is not having locus standi to file the complainant as the allegations of deficiency of service and unfair trade practice.  There is no deficiency of service on the part of opposite party No.2.  Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

4.       On behalf of the complainant Ex.A1 and Ex.A2 are marked and sworn affidavit of complainant is filed.  On behalf of opposite parties Ex.B1 is marked and sworn affidavit of opposite parties 1 and 2 are filed. 

5.       Both sides filed written arguments.

6.       Now the points that arise for consideration are:

1. Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite    parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

7.      POINTS i and ii:-           It is the case of the complainant opposite parties introduced the prize winning scheme by the name ”Sankranthi Panduga Sambaralu” and the said scheme was advertised as part of their sales promotion of their petrol.  As per the advertisement any person who purchased the worth of Rs.200/- petrol opposite parties issued coupon and after festival opposite parties will conduct lucky draw and the lucky draw winner entitled to receive Indica Car from the opposite parties.  Accordingly complainant purchased the petrol Rs.210-49 Ps., and opposite party No.1 issued coupon, bearing No.137969 the complainant filled it and the counter foil was put in lucky coupon box of opposite party No.1.  On 08.02.2011 the complainant received a phone call from opposite party No.2 and informed that the complainant is the winner of the car and requested to produce the original coupon to collect the Car.  The opposite party No.2 sent a letter dated 10.03.2011 along with Xerox copy of coupon.  It is marked as Ex.A1 as the complainant misplaced his original coupon he sent affidavit and house hold supply card towards his identity and requested the opposite parties to deliver the car.  Though the complainant requested number of times through SMS and E-mails which is marked as Ex.A2, but the opposite parties did not respond either to give reply or to deliver the prize car.

          It is the case of opposite party No.1 that the complainant did not produce any bill to prove that he had purchased the above said petrol from this opposite    party No.1 only.  There are five Indian Oil Corporation petrol bunk is at Kurnool.  The Complainant neither requested this opposite party No.1 not sent the E-mails relating to the alleged prize car.

          It is the case of opposite party No.2 that the lucky draw was conducted on 17.01.2011.  Ten coupons more picked up from one after another and the complainant number is “6”.  The same was informed to the complainant through SMS to bring the original coupon A137969 to win the prize car at the office of opposite party No.2 Tirupathi for verification, and all other 9 persons were also informed the same by opposite party No.2.  The persons who were at serial No.1, 2, 3 did not attend and produce the coupon, the person at serial No.4 attended and produced the original coupon and got the car.  As per the name and phone number over the coupon A137969 the complainant was informed about the lucky draw.  The draw result (for car) with coupon Number, Names and phones dated 17.01.2011 is marked as Ex.B1.  But the complainant is not claiming the said coupon and mentioned his coupon No.31819 in his SMS and E-mails (Ex.A2).  Thus the complainant is not having Locus Standi to file the complaint.

8.       The learned counsel appearing for the complainant argued that non production of bill for purchase of petrol cannot be taken as a ground that the complainant not purchased the petrol from opposite party No.1.  The negligent act on the part of opposite parties would amount to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.  To support his version he cited a decision reported in (2010) CJ 421(Ker) State Commission Sachidanandan.G -Vs- Coca-Cola India Limited and others in cited case the version of opposite parties that complainant purchased the Thums-Up bottles for resale for commercial purpose because he is running a cool bar and he sent such liners to the address mentioned in advertisement through speed post instead of it may be sent by ordinary post as per the scheme.  The State Commission of Keral not accepted the contention of opposite parties and held that the mere fact that the complainant sent the articles by speed post instead of sending the same by ordinary post cannot be taken as ground to deny the prize car which the complainant is entitle and it is not proved that he was conducting sale of Thums-Up bottles.  Hence He purchased it for his consumption.  The facts of the cited case are not applicable to the present case on hand.  In Instant case the complainant is in the place of ‘6’ out of ten coupons he may get chance if the above five persons were not attended and the complainant is not in possession of his original coupon it was misplaced by him and he was not definite with regard to his coupon.

9.       The learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.2 contended that the said lucky draw scheme is not against law and this type of schemes are being adopted globally and the complainant had not incurred any loss due to the said scheme he cited decision of Honorable National Commission reported in II (2013) CPJ 501 (NC) Big Bazaar, Ahmedabad -Vs- Government of Gujarat Thr. N.V.Patel wherein it was held that Floating of Schemes attracting the customers or to give them suitable incentives from time to time are accepted international business practices, rather they should be encouraged and used for looking after interests of customers at large, No unfair/restrictive trade practice on the part of petitioners.

10.     It is not under dispute that the opposite parties introduced the prize winning scheme and the said scheme was advertised as a part of their sales promotion of the petrol.   As seen from Ex.A1 the Xerox copy of coupon bearing No.137969 sent by opposite party No.2 along with letter dated 10.03.2011.  It is sufficient to hold that the complainant purchased petrol as per the said scheme and the opposite parties issued coupon (Ex.A1).  As per Ex.A2 and Ex.B1 it is clear that the opposite party No.2 conducted lucky draw on 17.01.2011 and informed the ten lucky coupons numbers the opposite party No.2 informed the same to the complainant through SMS dated 09.02.2011 that the complainant is in Serial Number ‘6’ and asked to bring the original coupon No.137969 to opposite party No.2 office at Tirupathi for verification.  But unfortunately the complainant misplaced or lost his original coupon as required to win the prize car so he could not produced it for verification.  As seen from Ex.B1 it is clear that the complainant is in Serial Number ‘6’.  The complainant may get chance only if the above five coupon numbers were not attended and produced the original coupon.  The complainant failed to produce any cogent evidence on record to prove that the opposite parties adopted unfair trade practice for promoting their sale of petrol.  We consider all material available on record and in the light of Honorable National Commission decision we hold that the complainant could not establish that there is unfair trade practice and deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties.  Hence the complainant is not entitled for prize car or any compensation as prayed in the above complaint.

11.     In the result, the complaint is dismissed without cost.

          Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by us in the open bench on this the 24^th day of February, 2015.

          Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

                                               Witnesses Examined

For the complainants:- Nil                    For the opposite parties:- Nil

List of exhibits marked for the complainants:-

Ex.A1          Letter of opposite    party No.2 to the complainant dated 10.03.2011         along with Lucky Draw Coupon.

Ex.A2          Photo copy of records of email between complainant and opposite    

                   party No.2.

List of exhibits marked for the opposite parties:-

Ex.B1                    Photo copy of Indian Oil Corporation Limited Tirupati Divisional

                   Office dated 17.01.2011.

          Sd/-                                                                                         Sd/-

LADY MEMBER                                                                          PRESIDENT

     // Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//

Copy to:-

Complainant and Opposite    parties :

Copy was made ready on                   :

Copy was dispatched on                    :