In the Court of the Calcutta District Forum, Unit-I

                                  CDF-1/Case no.311/2007

Dr. Anupam Bhattacharya,

18A, Brajanath Dutta Lane, Kolkata-12                                 ….....     Complainant

vs.

Vodafone, Essar East Ltd.,

11, U.N. Bramhacharya Street, Kolkata-17                             …....  Opposite party 

Present :      Sri A.K. Das,  President

                    Sri L.K. Banerjee, Member

                    Smt. J, Saha,  Member               

Order no.   8    dt.    20.05.2008

            The present case being no.311/2007 was filed u/s 12 of the C.P. Act 1986 by Dr. Anupam Bhattacharya, 18A, Brajanath Dutta Lane, Kolkata-12 against the o.p. Vodafone, Essar East Ltd. 11, U.N. Bramhacharya Street, Kolkata-17 before the forum praying for various relief as specified at page 28 of the main petition. The facts of the case are in brief as follows.

            That the petition on 30.1.04 being invited by the o.p. over SMS at his mobile phone being no.98300062371 joined a SMS general knowledge contest “The yahoo kinetic velocity motor cycle contest” for an offer of a kinetic velocity motor cycle to the winner of the participant of he contest. That he contested the case and became the top scorer as it revealed from the SMS message sent byn the o.p. dt.30.1.04. That the o.p. asked to reply to the message to complete the slogan with kinetic velocity “I can rule the city coz & yeh could with a kinetic velocity”. That the slogan condition was an after thought added condition and it was not in the commencement of the contest. The petitioner sent a slogan viz “with kinetic velocity I can rule the city coz I gain speed, power, confidence and I with the kinetic city of Kolkata”. The o.p. on 11.2.04 through the SMS message informed the petitioner that the reply slogan message was of “invalid command” and that the participation was not accurately registered for the slogan. Thereafter the made several correspondences to get satisfactory answer regarding the contest but the o.p. remained silent without providing any reply to the offering made by the petitioner. Hence the case was filed before the forum for redress of grievance of the petitioner.

            No on behalf of the o.p. was present att he time of hearing. No w/v was filed by the o.p. The matter was heard ex parte.

            It appears from the record that the petitioner participated in the SMS contest launched by the o.p. and congratulated through SMS as top scorer. The petitioner also sent a slogan through the SMS as desired by the o.p. although the condition of sending slogan was not initially in the contest fray. The o.p. neither declared the petitioner a winner of he contest nor handed over he winning prize a Kinetic velocity motor cycle to the petitioner. The o.p. also did not offered any reason for not giving the prize to petitioner. It is generally seen that the big carp may with a view to enhance their business interest float this type of contest to generate public interest.

            There was no specific condition as for wining the prize. Everything was done through the SMS message which the petitioner displayed before the forum in order to prove the authenticity of his statement. Annex-5 reveals that the o.p. requested the petitioner to visit the o.p’s office for validating the SMS message which the petitioner was in possession. On the body of the annex-5 it was noted by the o.p. that the customer visited Constantia and showed the message which does not configure that the contestant is the winner of he contest”. The petitioner through the SMS message declared top scorer” and congratulating message was received by him but the question of handing ovr the winning prize was not done as it was stated by the o.p. annex-11 that “ the said claim for prize does not stand valid and there has been no confirmation from our end to the said effect”.

            There is no specific terms and condition for winning the prize as the whole contest was done through the SMS message. The o.p. tried trick to the hood wink their responsibility and keep in the dark of the contestant about the process of winning the prize. The petitioner as it appears from the record that made several correspondences to the o.ps. for clarification and transparency of the contest but the o.ps. did not clarify the matter to the  satisfaction of the petitioner although the petitioner got message as top scorer in the contest. The replies made by the o.ps. submitted by the petitioner as annex marked 3,5,7,9,11,13 are not convincing and cannot be accepted as transparent documents in the matters of contest launched by the o.ps. through the SMS message. The petitioner was declared top scorer by the o.ps. and gin the absence of any terms and condition, the petitioner as top scorer is entitled to get the winning prize of “Yahoo Kinetic Velocity Motor Cycle”.  The petitioner is a renowned physician by profession and his statement could be trusted as genuine. Having considered all such aspects so long discussed in detail the forum is of the opinion that there is no tems and conditon of the contest game and there is no denial by the o.p. of he statement made by the petitioner. The forum relied upon the contents of the consumer complaint and submission of the petitioner in coming to conclusion of the dispute in question.

            Moreover the matter was heard ex parte. No w/v was filed by the o.p. and no effort was made by the o.p. to controvert the allegations as alleged by the petitioner against the o.ps. The allegations against the o.ps. remained unchallenged, unconfuted and uncontroverted.

            The petitioner has been able to prove his case to the hilt so as to get the relief within the ambit of C.P. Act 1986. the o.p’s action smacks of dereliction of duty, deficient in service and amounting to unfair trade practice to the interest of the petitioner. The case succeeds.

            Hence,

                        Ordered,

            The o.p. is directed to hand over the winning prize of Yahoo Kinetic Velocity Motor Cycle to the top scorer of the contest the present petitioner and the o.p. also do pay a sum of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) and Rs.1000/- (Rupees one thousand) respectively only as compensation and litigation cost for causing needless mental agony, harassment to the petitioner for its negligence, inaction, deficiency and unfair trade practice. The compliance of the order should be made within 60 days from the date of this order, failing which it will carry interest @ 8% p.a. on the aforesaid sums as ordered till realization.

            Let copy of this order be supplied to the parties free of cost.

Member                                   Member                                   President