State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Nestle India Ltd.,Rep. By Its General ... vs M. Gurubaran,Old No.7, New No.13, Arcot ... on 30 December, 2011
BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI BEFORE THE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI Present Hon'ble Thiru Justice M. THANIKACHALAM PRESIDENT Thiru.J.Jayaram, M.A., M.L., JUDICIAL MEMBER
Tmt.Vasugi Ramanan, M.A., B.L., MEMBER II F.A.753/2010 [Against order in C.C.145/2005 on the file of the DCDRF, Chennai (South)] DATED THIS THE 30th DAY OF DECEMBER 2011
1. Nestle India Ltd., | Appellants / Opposite Parties Rep. by its General Manager, | M-5A, Cannught Circus, | New Delhi 110 001. | |
2. Nestle Consumer Service, | Rep. by its General Manager, | P.O. Bag No.2, | New Delhi 110 001. | |
3. Nest India Ltd., | Rep. by its General Manager, | 769, Spencer Plaza, Anna Salai, | Chennai 600 002. | Vs.
1. M. Gurubaran, | 1st Respondent/ Complainant Old No.7, New No.13, Arcot Street, | T. Nagar, | Chennai 600 017. | |
2. M/s. Kausar Trading, | R2 to R4/2nd to 4th Ops.
General Merchant, | No.7, Lakshmi Kanthan Street, | Pondy Bazaar, | Chennai 600 017. | The complainant filed a complaint before the District Forum alleging deficiency in service against the opposite parties and prayed for a direction to stop the opposite parties from carrying out unfair trade practice of exhibiting false advertisement, to pay Rs.10 lakhs towards compensation and costs.
The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 3 and dismissed against the 4th opposite party, directed opposite parties 1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs.
Aggrieved by the said order of the District Forum, the Ops 1 to 3 preferred an appeal before this Commission.
This appeal come before us for hearing finally on 5.12.2011, upon hearing the arguments of the appellant counsel and perusing the documents, as well as the order of the District Forum, this Commission made the following order:
Counsel for Appellants/Ops 1 to 3 :
M/s.A.Selva Nambi, Advocate.
Counsel for 1st Respondent/Complainant : Served Absent.
For R2 / 4 Op. : Served Absent.
Mrs. VASUGI RAMANAN, MEMBER The case of the complainant is as follows:-
1. The opposite party had advertised that on purchase of 50 grams of Nestle Classic Coffee Powder a sugar pot is free and further Nayi Shuruwat offer is available for the same purchase. In that offer, first prize is one house worth of Rs.10 lakh, second prize is three prizes of Rs.2 lakhs each and 3rd prize is Rs.50,000/- for 5 and all the prizes to be awarded to the prize winners.
2. After being attracted by the advertisement in the wrapper of the Nestle Coffee Power, the complainant purchased 50 grams of Nestle Powder for a sum of Rs.47/- on 19.03.2003 from the 4th opposite party. The complainant opened the pack and to his shock, he found out from the conditions printed on the inner side of the Nayi Shuruwat that the offer is not valid in Tamil Nadu.
3. The complainant states that the Ops 1 to 3 by printing an attractive offer inside the wrapper, have misrepresented to the consumer. For promoting their business, they induced the complainant and other consumer in Tamil Nadu to buy their product when actually no such offer is available to the consumers in Tamil Nadu. The complainant alleged that because of the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the first Ops 1 to 3, the complainant suffered mental agony and so prayed for compensation.
4. The case of the opposite parties is as follows:-
The opposite parties 1 to 3 launched a promotional campaign, announcing a prize scheme of Nayi Shuruwat where by entering into a draw, participants can win a house worth of Rs.10 lakhs. On the inner side of the wrapper, the terms and conditions pertaining to the scheme were printed. The scheme was not applicable to the State of Tamil Nadu by virtue of operation of law. The complainants ignorance of the law prevalent in the State is no ground for claiming compensation. The opposite parties prayed for dismissal of the compliant.
5. The 4th opposite party adopted the version filed by Ops 1 to 3.
6. The District Forum observed the following points. The complainant had spent Rs.47/-, purchasing coffee powder weighing 50 grams. The District Forum pointed out that the opposite parties should have made it clear that it has been barred to the residents of Tamil Nadu since the opposite parties 1 to 3 have induced the complainant to purchase coffee powder on seeing the advertisement. But conditions were printed inside the wrapper, though the prizes are not valid in Tamil Nadu such an act, according to the District Forum amounted to unfair trade practice.
7. The District Forum allowed the complaint against the opposite parties 1 to 3 and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.3,000/- as costs. The District Forum held the Ops 1 to 3 liable, but dismissed the complaint against 4th opposite party. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties preferred an appeal before this Commission.
8. The learned counsel for appellants argued that Tamil Nadu Government had prohibited all prize schemes and so the offer was not valid in Tamil Nadu and the same has been published inside the wrapper. The learned counsel submitted that the District Forum committed error by holding the appellants liable since the terms and conditions are available inside the wrapper.
9. Respondents 1 and 2 remained absent.
10. After perusing the material records, submissions made by both parties, District Forums order, appeal grounds, and arguments put forth by the learned counsel for appellants, this Commission comes to the following conclusion.
11. The opposite parties had offered a prize scheme, which is not applicable to consumers in Tamil Nadu. The prize scheme prohibited in Tamil Nadu has been advertised in the outer wrapper, but the fact is that the prize scheme is not valid in Tamil Nadu. But, such prohibition in Tamil Nadu is not made explicit and clear on the outside cover of wrapper, but was found only inside the wrapper. The consumer can have access to the terms and conditions only after buying the Nestle Coffee Powder and after opening the pack and not before buying. This certainly amounts to unfair trade practice. The opposite parties have clearly induced the consumers without letting them know that prize scheme is not available to them. When the prize scheme is not valid to consumer in Tamil Nadu, there is no need for the opposite parties to publish the prize scheme on the outside wrappers. The innocent consumer attracted by the offer and prize scheme, buy the coffee powder and they come to know that they, as residents in Tamil Nadu and not eligible to participate in the scheme, only after purchasing the product and after going through the inner side of the wrapper such an act clearly amounts to unfair trade practice.
12. The District Forum has rightly held the opposite parties 1 to 3 liable jointly and severally. This is a clear case of unfair trade practice as per Section 2 (r) of the Consumer Protection Act, wherein a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice.
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, confirming the order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai [South], in C.C.145/2005, dated 25.05.2010. No order as to costs in this appeal.
VASUGI RAMANAN J. JAYARAM M.THANIKACHALAM MEMBER II JUDICIAL MEMBER PRESIDENT