NIHAR RANJAN CHHOTRAY Vs. CHAIRMAN BAJAJ AUTO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the complainant whose complaint patition has been allowed with a mere direction to the respondents M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited and M/s. Priti Auto Combine, the autiorised dealer of the said company, to issue to the complainant the prize card on the basis of which the complainant could receive certain valuable, prizes offered by M/s. Bajaj Auto Ltd. , to the persons who would purchase a Bajaj Scooter in between the period from 1.12.99 to 31.12.99 which the company termed as "bajaj Crorepati Hungama". The first prize was offered to be Rs.1 crore, 100 prizes were of Rs.1 lakh each and there were other prizes such as music system, watches, etc.1. It is not disputed that the complainant purchased a Bajaj Scooter of 'legend' model from dealer on 28.12.99 on paymant of Rs.32,900/-. The responant No.2 did not issue the prize card so offered by the company. Therefore, he filed the case claiming that had he been given the prize card, he would have at least got a cash prize of Rs.1 lakh.

(2.) The District Forum accepted the case of the complainant that he was entitied to a prize card, but it did not allow his prayer for any monetary relief.

(3.) On going through the impugned judgment and the materials on record, we find the Company in fact floated the scheme and offered the prizes to the public, thereby attracted each and every interested person to go for a Bajaj, two-wheeler. Such offer certainly termed to be an offer to enter into a contract that whoever purchased a Bajaj Scooter during the specified period, would be given a prize card and thus the holder of such card might be entitled to a prize that could be found on the card being scratched. The Company did not come forward with a case that in fact any of the customers who purchased a Bajaj Scooter during that period ever received any prize from this offer. We are of the view that once they made an offer and the complainant being satisfied as to the bona fide conduct of the company purchased the scooter because of the offer, there was a full-fledged contract which the respondents should have performed. Their only plea is that on the day on which the complainant purchased the scooter the scratch cards had been exhausted and that they even wrote letters to the complainant to come to their shop and collect the scratch card, but the complainant did not contact them and, therefere, they did not commit any deficiency in service.