1. THIS is a Revision Petition against the order of the State Commission, Delhi in Appeal No.A-7/93 in which the appeal was partly accepted and the order of the District Forum, Delhi, was modified whereby the respondent is directed to deliver to the Complainants two return tickets to New York or in the alternative to pay the then prevailing price of two tickets to him and also to pay Rs. 5,000/- as compensation within two months of the date of the order.
2. THE facts of the case as found by the State Commission are that M/s. Byford, opposite party, issued an advertisement entitled "Win a Premier Padmini Car EPDE". In a 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 held and the person who were successful in the 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 4.7.1990 informed the complainant that he was the 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 16.10.1989 and 31.5.1990 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 he liabilities of that year to the following years under the Income Tax Rules.
3. AFTER giving consideration to all the contentions raised by both the parties, the State Commission has come to the above mentioned conclusion. Being aggrieved by the same the Opposite Party therein came in revision to the National Commission.
We are of the opinion that there is force in the contention put up by the revision petitioner that the Complainant Shri S.S. Srivastava was not a ''Consumer'' as defined in the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He had paid for a Padmini Premier Car which he had duly received and there is no complaint that it has any defect. So the revision petitioner herein was not liable as far as that contract was conceded. Receiving two air tickets to New York was an additional attraction that was attached to the sale, but which depended upon a lottery draw. It was not an intrinsic part of the contract deal for which payment was made. Thus as far as the lottery winning is concerned, it cannot be said that the Complainant was a ''Consumer'' who had hired any service for consideration and hence he has no right to get redressal under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
4. THE Respondent/Complainant did argue that this would fall under Unfair Trade Practice as in Sec. 36(A)(4) of the M.R.T.P Act. But we are unable to accept this argument.
Nevertheless we deem it fit to mention here that such sale gimmicks lure Consumers and then when the promises are not honoured the Consumers feel duped. Of course, in this particular case, when the draw was held and the complainant was found to be the winner, he was informed about it. At that particular time the Complainant was not ready to travel and so instead of accepting the two Air Tickets, he asked for the equivalent amount in rupees, which was not as per the conditions of the lottery scheme. Later when he did get his passports ready, and was willing to travel, the financial year of the Revision Petitioner''s company had ended, and the lottery scheme of the previous year could not be accommodated in the next year. Thus the complainant lost his chance to get the benefit of winning the lottery. This is unfortunate. But we are unable to intervene and cannot grant him any relief.
Thus we allow the Revision Petition and set aside the order of the State Commission .
5. THERE, will be no order as to costs. Order set aside.
