ORDER
D.G. Aggarwal, Member
1. This is an application under Section 12B of the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969, praying that the applicant, Rajeev Sethi, be allowed compensation to the extent of the cost of the magazine which he purchased in order to send entries with a view to participating in the contest organized by India Book House of Bombay (hereinafter referred to as “the respondent”). The applicant, Mr. Rajeev Sethi, also claims to be the Chairman of the Citizens’ Action Committee which is a voluntary organisation set up to fight against the wrong acts of companies and individuals.. He says that the contest by the name “Man of the Year Contest” was organized by the respondent and the entry form was available only in the copies of Time magazine sold at the news-stand for Rs. 22 per copy. The entry form was required to be filled in as per the rules framed by the respondent and to be submitted with a Time mast-head of any issue between September 9, 1985, and December 23, 1985. The applicant sent six entries to this contest after buying six issues of the Time magazine for Rs. 132.
2. Since the holding of the prize contest on the basis of the entries through coupons to be found in the magazine sold at the news-stand only, according to the applicant, is an unfair trade practice in respect of which enquiry was instituted by the Commission, he suffered loss in the matter of purchasing the magazines.
3. The respondent contested this application on the plea that the application, not having been supported by an affidavit, is not tenable under regulation 84C. As regards the price of Rs. 22 per copy, it is stated that it is the normal retail price of the magazine at the news-stand and nothing extra was charged for the entry coupon to enable the applicant to participate in the contest. It is further stated that it was not obligatory for the applicant to have purchased the magazine and no inducement was held out to him to purchase it at the news-stand ; in fact no purchase memo has been produced by the applicant. As regards the issuance of notice of enquiry for an allegedly unfair trade practice, it is submitted that from mere issuance of notice of enquiry, it is not to be judged that the respondent indulged in any unfair trade practice.
4. As regards the alleged loss or injury, it is submitted that Rs. 22 per copy is the normal price at the news-stand and that, therefore, the applicant did not suffer any loss or damage; in fact, no particulars of the alleged loss or damage have been given. It is not that the magazine was sold for the coupon only, but it also contained reading material meant for readers all over India.
5. All said, according to the respondent, the magazine being a source of knowledge and information for world market affairs, political and cultural, the applicant did not suffer any damage or loss.
6. An enquiry, bearing UTPE No. 75 of 1985, under Section 36B(d) read with Section 36A of the MRTP Act, was instituted against the respondent. By order dated November 14, 1986, this application under Section 12B was consolidated with UTPE No. 75 of 1985 under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code directing that evidence shall be recorded in file UTPE No. 75 of 1985 and shall be ready for the disposal of this compensation application as well. The following issues were framed :
(i) Whether the applicant, Mr. Rajeev Sethi, suffered any loss or damage by reason of the unfair trade practice, if any, proved to have been carried out by the respondent ?
(ii) If so, what compensation is he entitled to for the loss or damage suffered by him ?
(iii) Relief.
7. The “Man of the Year Contest” was announced by an advertisement dated September 12, 1985, in the Hindustan Times. The respondent offered-the following :
1. grand prize ... New brain computer from Megabyte 2. first prize ... Sony music system session--3,500 3. second prize ... Binatone colour T.V. 4. third prize ... Akai bush VCP 5. fourth prize ... Minolta photophone AF-E 6. 100 consolation prizes.
8. Since the entry was required to be sent by filling in a coupon which was inserted in the issues of the Time magazine for the period September 9, 1985, to December 23, 1985, sold at the news-stand only, a candidate for the contest had to buy a copy at the news-stand. These coupons were not to be found in the issues of the Time magazine to be sent to the annual subscribers. Also as the price per copy for the subscriber was Rs. 16 and the purchase price at the news-stand was Rs. 22 per copy, a candidate like the applicant, Mr. Rajeev Sethi, had to pay Rs. 6 more per copy than that an annual subscriber would be paying.
9. In UTPE No. 75 of 1985, the holding of this contest has been held to be an unfair trade practice. The judgment has been pronounced in this respect. That judgment is to be read as part of this order.
10. Mr. Rajeev Sethi says that he does not subscribe to this magazine, Time. When he read the advertisement, he was tempted to participate in the contest. Naturally, when the prize offered is of manifold value than the price of the article in question, the use or the benefit of that article would be over-shadowed by the expectation of getting the gift. Where it is the predominant and sole purpose of entering into a contest that he would get the prize/gift and not an ancillary or secondary object, obviously the money spent would be a loss from the point of view of such a buyer.
11. A plea has been made that a second-hand copy would be available from any seller on payment but as it ordinarily happens, such reading material is disposed of after a long time. Mr. Rajeev Sethi says that besides Rs. 132 on the six copies of the magazine, he spent Rs. 4.50 on postage, etc. Considering that these magazines could fetch some amount even when sold to a junk dealer, we feel that approximately a loss of Rs. 120 may be said to have been suffered by the applicant, There is no evidence in rebuttal to show that as a matter of fact, six copies of the Time magazine were not purchased by the applicant to send six entries as asserted by him. This being so, we have, to believe that what the applicant says is factually true.
12. Thus, we feel that the applicant suffered a loss in the sum of Rs. 120. Both these issues are decided against the respondent.
13. Under Section 12B of the Monopolies Restrictive Trade Practices Act,
1969, it is held that the applicant is entitled to recover Rs. 120 from the
respondent as compensation. It is directed that the amount shall be
paid within one month’s time from the date of this order.