1. THE opposite party has filed an appeal against the order of the District Forum dated 20.11.91, by which they have been directed to pay the cost of two Air Tickets form New Delhi to New York and back to the complainant alongwith interest @18% p.a. from the date of draw till the date of payment and Rs. 10,000/- as compensation.
2. BRIEFLY the facts are that M/s. Byford, opposite party, issued an advertisement entitled "WIN A PREMIER PADMINI CAR FREE." In nutshell it was stated in the advertisement that a person could enter the contest by booking a Premier Padmini Car. On the specified date(s) draws would be drawn and the persons who were successful draws, would be entitled to two free tickets from New Delhi to New York and back. In pursuance of the advertisement the complainant purchased a Premier Padmini Car from the opposite party and thus entered the contest.
The opposite party by their communication dated 4.7.89 informed the complainant that he was a winner of 3rd draw of Premier Padmini Contest held on 3rd July, 1989 and enquired from him as to when two of them would wish to travel to New York, so as to enable them to arrange for the return air tickets. It is pleaded by the complainant that he requested the opposite party to pay him the value of two air tickets. The opposite party expressed their inability to do so and advised him to produce the passports, so that the tickets could be purchased for them. Thereafter he obtained the passports for himself and his wife on 16.10.89 and 31.5.90 respectively, and sent the same to the opposite party. It is alleged by the complainant that the tickets were not delivered to him by them and that amounts to unfair trade practice on their part. The complainant claimed an amount of Rs. 45,000/-as the value of two air tickets with interest @18% p.a. and other reliefs.
The claim was contested by the respondent. It was inter-alia pleaded by them that the complainant was not a consumer and thus not entitled to file a complaint. They further pleaded that the accounts for the financial year in dispute had been closed and they were unable to carry out the liabilities of that year to the following years under the Income Tax Rules. The learned District Forum granted the relief to the complainant as mentioned above.
3. THE first contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that Shri S.S. Srivastava is not a complainant as defined in the Act and therefore, he cannot file a complaint against the appellant. We have duly considered the argument. THE word "service" has been defined is Section 2(1)(o) of the Consumer Protection Act which reads as follows: "Service" means service of any description which is made available to potential user and includes the provision of facilities in connection with banking, financing, insurance, transport, processing, supply of electrical or other energy, board or lodging or both, entertainment, amusement or the purveying of news or other information, but does not include the rendering of any service free of charge or under a contract of personal service." From the language used in the definition it is evident that it is not an exhaustive definition as it says that "service" means the service of any description which is made available to potential users." In the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary 3rd edition various meaning have been assigned to the Word "service." Some of the meanings assigned are "the action of serving, helping or benefitting; conduct tending to the welfare or advantage of another. (b) an act of helping or benefitting."
The act of supplying two tickets to the complainant to go to New York and back amount to act of helping or benefitting him in consideration of his participating in the draw. If the company had not offered that benefit, the claimant and some of the customers would not have booked the car with them. Thus the company was rendering service to the complainant and others when they promised to give two returned tickets from New Delhi to New York to them in consideration of purchasing a car by them.
4. THE next question to be determined is, whether the present petition falls within the definition of the word ''complaint.'' THE word ''complaint'' has been defined in Section 2(1)(c) of the Act. It reads as follows : "complaint" means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that: (i) & (ii) xxx xxx xxx xxx (iii) the services mentioned in the complaint suffer from deficiency in any respect; (iv) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx THE word "deficiency" has again been defined in Clause 2(1)(g) of the Act as follows : "deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service." It is evident from the above definitions, that the complaint should contain the allegations regarding deficiency in service. In the present case the act of not supplying the tickets to the complainant by the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service. THEse allegations are contained in the present petition. Thus it is a complaint as defined in the Act.
It is not disputed that the complainant became entitled to two return tickets for New York from the opposite party - appellant. There are no sufficient grounds to deny that right to him. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to the said tickets.
The learned Counsel for the appellant has next argued that the complainant is not entitled to any interest on the amount. He further submits that the air fairs had gone very high and the appellant shall have to spend almost twice the amount what they had to spend earlier. We find force in this contention as we think that the complainant would be amply compensated, if the interest is not allowed to him. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to interest on the amount.
5. THE last contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been granted as compensation to the respondent without giving any reason. He submits that in that situation it was not proper to have awarded compensation. We find that the amount of compensation granted is very high. In our opinion, the amount of Rs. 5000/- in that regard would serve the ends of justice. Consequently, we reduce the amount of compensation from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-.
6. FOR the aforesaid reasons we partly accept the appeal, modify the order of the District FORum and direct the respondent to deliver two return tickets for New York to the complainant and in the alternative to pay the present price of two tickets to him and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- to him on account of compensation within 2 months. In view of partial success of the appeal, we make no order as to cost. Order modified.
