The DCDRC Bench of President AK Kuhar and members Rashmi Bansal and Dr Rajender Dhar directed Sun to pay a compensation of ₹40,000 to one Zamiruddin for the mental agony and pain he underwent and ₹5,000 as litigation cost for the expenses incurred since 2016.
The Commission noted that the respondents had introducing a scheme so as to attract purchases but did not disclose on the packets that there would be a draw to get the coin.
“An illiterate and gullible consumer would easily get carried away by such catchy slogan on the packet. Moreover, even after closure of the scheme the result has never been declared or made public”, the Commission held, holding that the same is in violation of Section 2(3A) of the Consumer Protection Act and an unfair trade practice.
“The opening of the economy and global market with removal of restrictions on international trade has led to a phenomenal increase of competition among the traders and manufacturers of consumer goods. In some ways, it has benefited the consumer in the sense of improvement in the quality of service in goods but at the same time it has led to adoption of many unfair trade practices to promote sale of commodities which affects the interest of consumers adversely,” the Commission further observed in its order.
The Commission was hearing a matter in which Sun, the manufacturer of Revital Capsules, a daily health supplement, misled the complainant by an advertisement on the product’s packet. The complainant believed that he won a gold coin on its purchase by getting a coupon and following the directions mentioned in the coupon.
The issue arose when the complainant, after completing the required steps, was assured that he won a gold coin.
Following this, he approached the medical shop where he purchased the product seeking information about the coin. The shop stated that it had nothing to do with the scheme, but made an enquiry to the manufacturers about the complainant’s winning status.
Through email, the shop informed the complainant that he did not win any prize in the “Revital Silver Jubilee Contest”.
It was thus the complainant’s case that the medical shop and manufacturers cheated and sold him the product by misrepresentation.
He prayed for directions to the manufacturer to give him a gold coin, compensation towards the mental agony/harassment endured, and expenses towards litigation.
The medical shop stated that the draw was not its duty as it was simply a pharmaceutical shop. However, it admitted that the information as to the winner was not published anywhere and the shop had no knowledge of who won the gold/silver coin.
The manufacturer, on the other hand, shrugged off their responsibility by choosing to not appear despite notice.
Holding that the manufacturer could not escape liability in the matter, the Commission observed:
“Deceiving to general public is common by the companies by launching lucrative schemes and attracting customers, which is utterly in violation of the spirit of Consumer Protection Act dealing with unfair trade practice.”
The Commission did not allow the complainant’s prayer seeking the gold coin reasoning that he could not prove that he was a winner under the scheme.
However, it agreed that due to the non-disclosure of the result, the complainant kept on waiting which caused him worry, suffering, pain and mental agony for years.
The Court, however, gave respite to the pharmaceutical shop where the capsule was purchased, stating that the owner of the shop was not a party to the agreement and and had also done his duty by making an enquiry to the manufacturers and informing the complainant about the response.
The complainant was granted compensation for the mental agony and litigation costs by. The Commission also directed Sun that the order has to be complied within 45 days, failing which the amount would yield an interest of 6 per cent per annum.
