1. ALL India Deaf & Dumb Society (Regd.), arrayed as opposite party in this complaint, appears to have been running a weekly prize lottery under the name of ''Durga Luxmi'' is approved by the State Government of Andhra Pradesh. Rajinder Kumar Sachdeva, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, is stated to have purchased lottery ticket DT 182948 for the 102nd draw which was held on 8.7.90. The complainant claimed that as a result of the draw, he claims to have won the first prize. He, accordingly, deposited the ticket in original alongwith three attested photographs and an affidavit on 3.8.90. As payment was to be made subject to verification of the lottery ticket from the printing press, the lottery ticket was referred to the printer namely, Thomson Press (India) Ltd., Faridabad and it was reported that three digits appearing in the number appeared to be forged with the result that the ticket was not found to be genuine. Based on the report of the Press, the complainant was not paid any amount. He instituted the present complaint on 20.10.92. In the reply filed by the opposite party it has been stated that the complainant is not covered as such under the definition of ''Consumer'' in Clause 2(1)(c). It has further been pleaded that the opposite party was not providing any services and there was, thus, no question of any deficiency in service. It has further been stated that the prize money was payable only after verification of the genuineness of the ticket and in the present case it was found that the ticket submitted by the complainant was not genuine. It was also added that the opposite party was prepared to make the payment if genuineness of the ticket is established. The opposite party also stated that on the request of the complainant received through his Counsel, the opposite party permitted inspection of the ticket on 30.12.91 and it appeared that the complainant was satisfied with regard to the objection raised by the opposite party.
2. IN the rejoinder, the complainant, while controverting the averments made in the written version, has stated that no one else had claimed the prize money so far. We have heard Mr. P.K. Kaura, Advocate for the complainant and Mr. Manohar, authorised agent of the opposite party.
The crucial question arising in this case is whether the ticket in question is genuine. The contention of Mr. Kaura, learned Counsel for the complainant is that so far admittedly no one has come forward to claim the first prize and it, therefore, necessarily followed that the ticket produced by the complainant is a genuine one. We are not impressed by this submission. There can be a number of reasons why the real winner of the genuine ticket did not come forward to claim the amount. The question of disbursement of the prize money has, therefore, to be dealt with by the opposite party on the basis of a ticket which is found to be genuine. In the present case, the ticket was referred to its printer, Thomson Press, and after examination by the Press it was returned with the report that on checking it was found that digits ''8'', ''2'', ''8'' occurring in the ticket in question were tampered ones, and it was, therefore, concluded that the ticket was not genuine. The aforesaid report was forwarded by the opposite party to the complainant. In order to establish the genuineness or otherwise of the ticket, it would be necessary to have the ticket scientifically examined and produce to experts on both sides. The report of the Thomson Press furnishes prima-facie evidence that the ticket is not a genuine one. In case the complainant thinks that the ticket is genuine, it is open to him to establish his right in the Civil Court. We cannot undertake such an exercise in the present proceedings.
The second question which was debated was, whether the Consumer Protection Act was applicable to the facts of the case. Mr. Kaura invited our attention to an earlier decision of this Commission in Sandeep Mani v. The Director, Meghalaya State Lottery, I (1992) CPJ 291. This decision does not help the complainant. The only question considered therein was whether the Delhi Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission had territorial jurisdiction. No question relating to the application of Consumer Protection Act was considered in the above decision. The other decision relied on Mr. Kaura in Avantika v. M.D. Sharma, II (1991) CPJ 144 (Rajashtan). The only question considered in the above decision was regarding limitation and default in payment of the monthly instalments in order to win a refrigerator offered under a certain scheme. In other words, there is nothing in this decision to advance the case to the complainant. The question of jurisdiction was, however, examined by the Haryana State Commission in Jagdish Chand v. Director, Sikkim, III (1993) CPJ 1702 (Haryana), and it was held that the FORA under the C.P. Act did not have jurisdiction. We do not wish to express our opinion on this question in the present case as it is possible to dispose of the same in view of the disputed question of fact with regard to the genuineness of the ticket.
3. WE, accordingly, dismissed this complaint leaving it open to the complainant to have his remedy in the Civil Court. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties. Complaint dismissed.
