BRITANNIA INDUSTRIES LTD. Vs. STATE OF WEST BENGAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner company advertised a Scheme captioned "50-50 Jodi Banao Offer" whereunder a person buying a pack of 50-50 Biscuit, 50-50 Maska Chaska or 50-50 Pepper Chakkar, all manufactured by the petitioner company, was to match the half picture found inside the pack with the other half of the said picture, which could be found only in some other pack of any of the above referred three products. If a person was able to match the two halfs of the same picture, he was entitled to participate in a draw of lot in which several prizes such as laptops, watches and mobile phones were included. For instance, the first half of Eiffel Tower could be matched only by the picture of the second half of Eiffel Tower, to participate in the lucky draw for a trip to Paris, the first and second half of the laptop were to be matched for participating in the lucky draw for winning a laptop, the first and second half of the mobile phone were to be matched for participating in the lucky draw to win a mobile phone, the second half of the wrist watch was to be matched with its first half to participate in a lucky draw for winning a wrist watch and two halfs of the sunglasses were to be matched to participate in the lucky draw for winning sunglasses. The wrappers of the products were required to be submitted to the petitioner company alongwith the matching pictures. Though the offer closed on 15.04.2007, the date of closure of the offer was not indicated on the pack of the products sold by the petitioner company.

(2.) Based upon the information contained in a letter dated 10.04.2007 written to it by one Sh. Atanu Koomer, Government of West Bengal filed a complaint U/s 12(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, before the District Forum. It was alleged in the complaint that the petitioner company had tried to keep the consumer unaware of the details of the terms and conditions of the offer by depicting a deceptive trade practice. It was further stated that the promotional packets of the product of the petitioner company were available in the market even after the offer had closed. It was further alleged that the petitioner company had conducted a game of chance for the purpose of promoting the sale of its products. It was also claimed that interests of numerous consumers who were not conveniently identifiable had been adversely affected and the same were required to be protected. The complainant State Government sought punitive damages quantified at Rs. 20 lacs from the petitioner company alongwith directions to produce their accounts and not to repeat such unfair trade practice in future.

(3.) The complaint was resisted by the petitioner company inter-alia on the ground that :