HARI RAM GUPTA Vs. GILLETTE INDIA LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these mattes, except for R.P. No.1208/2009, the issue involved is whether the complainant is a consumer qua prize winning scheme called Geep Khul Jaye Kismat which accompanied the purchase of Geep Battery Cells, under which certain numbers mentioned inside the top seal of 505 batteries/cells, manufactured by opposite parties, were entitled for certain prizes. The dispute arose between the complainant and opposite parties on account of which complaints were filed in the District Forum. Issue of unfair trade practice was also raised in some matters. R.P. No. 1208/2009 relates to a different scheme of similar nature in which also similar question is involved.

(2.) IN First Appeal No.813 of 2003, the State Commission held that the complainant is not a consumer. In First Appeals Nos. 83 and 84 of 2006, the State Commission held that the complainants are consumers. In R.P. No.186 of 2004, the State Commission overruled the objections that the complainant was not a consumer and held that the complainant was in fact a consumer. In appeal No.491 of 2008, the claim of complainant has been allowed due to deficiency of service. In R.P. No. 1208/2009 which pertains to purchase of big bubbal -gum containing a scheme of prize coupons which would entitled top prize i.e. trip for two to America. In this case, it has been held by the State Commission that it was a case of unfair trade practice of highest order.

(3.) IN all these matters reliance has been placed on the judgment of this Commission in Byford v. S.S Srivastava wherein with reference to purchase of Premier Padmini car, there was scheme for participation in the draw which would entitle the winner to travel to New York. In this case it was held that the complainant was not a consumer vis -a -vis the scheme. On the issue of unfair trade practice, reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Apex Court in H.M.M. Ltd. v. Director General. Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission.