ANUPAM BHATTACHARYA Vs. VODAFONE ESSAR EAST LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Getting lured by a message on his mobile phone for participation in contest for winning a offer of Kinetic Velocity motorcycle, petitioner allegedly participated in competition and became top scorer. However, certain slogans, which were incomplete, were required to be completed. Though slogan was allegedly remitted to respondent-company, that did not find favour with respondent-company, as slogan message was of invalid command and hence participation of petitioner was not registered. As desired result could not be had despite long persuasion by petitioner, a consumer complaint was filed seeking direction to respondent-company to make over to him the prize as per its advertisement. Respondent-company was set ex-parte before District Forum and District Forum on pleadings of petitioner while accepting his claim directed respondent-company to hand over winning prize of Kinetic Velocity motorcycle to petitioner along with compensation of Rs.5000/- and also cost of Rs.1000/-. There was also a default clause that in case award was not honoured within 60 days from the date of the order, award of Rs.6000/- would carry interest @ 8% per annum.

(2.) Though petitioner had a case before the State Commission that after he sent slogan he was also congratulated by respondent-company for winning contest, that did not find favour with the State Commission there being no credible evidence to support the contentions raised. That apart, even though slogan was required to be transmitted to respondent on a number bearing 8243, it is not in dispute that the slogan was transmitted to respondent by petitioner on a number which bore 82436018, which was admittedly not a valid number, and petitioner had sent message on invalid command. Grievance of petitioner also about respondent issuing misleading advertisement did not find favour with State Commission for want of good evidence.

(3.) Having considered finding of State Commission on fact, for which there cannot be reappraisal in revision, that the slogan was sent to respondent-company on an invalid number, he was not eligible for the prize, which he was claiming from the respondent-company. There appears to be neither material irregularity nor jurisdictional error requiring interference in order of State Commission in revision. Revision petition in backdrop of these events merits dismissal and is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.