Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission
Nand Gopal Goyal vs Colgate Palmolive (India) Ltd. on 3 November, 2003
Equivalent citations: I(2004)CPJ18(MRTP)
ORDER
C.M. Nayar, Chairman
1. The complainant who is present in person has argued that he purchased one pack of Colgate Dental Cream under the scheme where the respondent Company had dvertised "HAR PACK MAIN INAAM" but the pack which he purchased did not contain that advertisement. The respondent has filed reply wherein the scheme held out to the public as well the prizes offered under the said scheme are not denied.It is, however, argued that the pack which was purchased by the complainant did not inadvertently contain the advertisement and no intentional omission has been made in respect of the same.
2. We have heard the complainant as well as learned Counsel for the respondent. We are satisfied with the explanation as offered by the respondent specifically when no other such instance has been brought to our notice. In order to resolve the controversy between the parties it would be fair to direct the respondent to pay a further sum of Rs. 5,000/- as miscellaneous expenses in addition to Rs. 10,000/- which was granted as cost by order dated 7th August, 2003 by the Commission. The said amount of Rs. 15,000/- shall be paid to the complainant by means of bankers draft within one week from today. The present complaint is disposed of.