National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Gadhadharan .P vs United Trust Bank, U.K. on 13 December, 2012
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
NEW
DELHI
CONSUMER COMPLAINT NO. 178 OF 2012
Gadhadharan P.
S/o. Late Bhanuprakash
3/604, Manipuram Lane
Nadakav, Calicut 673 011
Kerala
.Complainant
Vs.
United
Trust Bank, U.K.
Rep
: Manager
80,
Haymarket
London,
United Kingdom . Opp.party
BEFORE :
HON'BLE
MR. JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER
HON'BLE
MR. VINAY KUMAR, MEMBER
For the
Complainant : Ms. V.S. LAKSHMI,
ADVOCATE
PRONOUNCED
ON_13.12.2012
ORDER
JUSTICE J.M. MALIK
1. The core issue is Whether the person who has won a lottery, is a Consumer, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?. The case of Gadhadharan, P., the complainant, in this case is as follows.
2. The complainant was informed by one Mr.Karen Anderson of the Swiss Lotto that he had won 2.5 million Pounds in a Swiss Lottery. The complainant was asked to pay Rs.14,000/- (In Indian Rupees) for transferring the same to complainants account at the State Bank of India, A/c No. S.B. 10159021232, Swift Code: SBININBB392.
The complainant asked him to send the proof and he directed him to one Mr.Basil John, who introduced himself as Accountant of United Trust Bank, United Kingdom. He also gave his on-line banking site. He was given an account number and a password.
Mr.Basil John informed that he will have to pay the Swiss agent, a sum of Rs.14,000/- (Indian Rupees) before transferring the money to his bank, at India. Mr.Karen Anderson asked him to produce an Anti-Terrorist Certificate and referred him to one Particia Cully. Mr.Basil John also asked him to pay Rs.50,000/- (Indian Rupees) for Anti-Terrorist Certificate.
3. The complainant became suspicious. He contacted the Head Office at United Trust Bank, via its e-mail address. He was informed that the persons with whom he was dealing with, were not the employees of the said Bank. A report about fraud was submitted by the complainant to the United Kingdom Police.
4. Thereafter, the complainant received an e-mail from the said Bank Head Quarters stating that said Mr.Basil John is the Accountant of United Trust Bank, and he was asked to do whatever Mr.Basil John had told him to get the money. He asked Mr.Karen Anderson and Mr.Basil John that demand of Anti-Terrorist Certificate was illegal. They informed him that they had dispensed him with the said Anti-Terrorist Certificate. Mr.Basil John informed the complainant that he had to further pay a sum of Rs.45,000/- as charges, before he could give him the transfer PIN. At the request of the complainant, Mr.Basil John agreed that he will allow transfer of 25% on payment of 20% of the charges. He also gave an unconditional undertaking to this effect.
5. The complainant paid Rs.10,500/- (Indian Rupees) in the Account, ICICI Bank, Calicut, as specified by Mr.Basil John. Firstly, he admitted but subsequently, he denied having received the said money. He did not transfer 25% of the money. The complainant made a complaint to the Head Office, but he was informed that Mr.Basil John had informed that the complainant had not paid the amount of Rs.10,500/- (Indian Rupees) and had forged a receipt which was returned. The complainant was informed that they would cancel his winning if he again contacted them. He was asked to contact Mr.Basil John and conclude the matter.
6. Thereafter, a number of e-mails were exchanged. The matter was again reported to the police. Subsequently, Mr. Basil John conceded the receipt of amount of Rs.10,500/- and admitted that it was a mistake on the part of the Bank. Mr. Basil John informed the complainant that he could not generate a PIN for transferring his money with that money and that the complainant will have to pay full charges. The complainant informed that he had already paid Rs.24,500/- at his direction. On the complaint made by the complainant, the General Manager informed him that he has cancelled all his transactions and asked him to pay USD 1000.00 plus get Anti-Terrorist Certificate and money laundering certificate. The complainant refused and filed a complaint before the Prime Minister of Britain.
7. Thereafter, Mr. Basil John, by an e-mail, informed him that on payment of Rs.50,000/-, all the complainants money would be transferred into his Bank account, in India. The complainant forwarded the e-mail along with attachment to the Enquiry Department of Her Majestys Royal Court for ascertaining the truth of the guarantee. They informed him that the guarantee document was false and not from court. Thereafter, number of correspondences were exchanged but nothing happened.
8. It is alleged that the Bank illegally and unjustly tried to fleche money from him and is committing gross bad service and malpractice amounting to gross illegal deficiency of service causing mental distress and agony to the complainant. The cause of action arose on 03.11.2011.
Consequently, the present complaint is filed with the following prayers :-
a) Direct the bank to credit 2.5 million pounds to my account at the State Bank of India, Nadakav, Calicut 673 011, Kerala State, India, Account No. SB 10159021232, Swift Code : SBININBB392. After deducting the charges from the interest accrued along with interest at 18% per annum till realization in full.
b) The Bank may also be directed to pay me a compensation of one million pounds for the difficulties, bad service, malpractices and illegalities committed on me.
c) pass such order as this court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice.
d) costs of the case.
9. We have heard the learned counsel for the complainant. First of all, he could not satisfy this Commission that the complainant is a consumer. This is a case of lottery which does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer court.
10. It is now settled that purchaser of lottery is not a consumer. In Satya Wati Goel (Dr.) Vs. Director, State Lotteries, Govt. of Sikkim, 1995 Supp. (2) SCC 743, the Honble Apex Court has observed that the appellant wanted to purchase a lottery ticket of the Government of Sikkim and for that purpose she sent a demand draft representing the value of the said ticket. The grievance of the appellant was that the respondents did not furnish the ticket to her and instead returned the demand draft after considerable delay of time. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dismissed the complaint on the short ground that the complainant was not a consumer entitled to seek any relief under the Consumer Protection Act. Supreme Court saw no ground to interfere with the impugned order of the National Commission. The appeal was dismissed in limine.
11. In the case reported in Byford Vs. S.S. Srivastava, 1993 (1) CTJ 375 (NC), the complainant was a winner in a contest, to be held by draw of lottery for Premier Padmini car and prize was two free tickets from New Delhi to New York. At that particular time, the complainant was not ready to travel and asked for the equivalent amount in Rupees (which was not as per the condition of lottery scheme). The complainant lost his chance to get that benefit. It was held that as far as the lottery winning was concerned, it cannot be said that the complainant was a consumer who had hired any service for consideration and hence he has no right to get redressal under the Act.
12. In M. Mahadev Vs. The Director, Nagaland State Lotteries, 1997 (3) CPR 48 at 49 (Kant), it was held that purchasing a lottery ticket does not amount to service. It may be legalized gambling or wagering contract, but not service. The complainant may have remedies before a Civil Court and not before a Consumer Court.
13. In Jagdish Chand of Kurukshetra Vs. Director, Sikkim State Lottery, 1994 (1) CPR 213 (Haryana) it was held that the lottery ticket holder was not within the ambit of the definition of consumer under the Act, and the beneficient consumer jurisdiction cannot be extended to lotteries and such wagering transactions.
14. Moreover, the cause of action arose in United Kingdom. The report was lodged with the Police in United Kingdom. Complaint was lodged with the Prime Minister of United Kingdom. Complaint was also lodged with the Bank, at United Kingdom. It is difficult to fathom as to how this Act (Consumer Protection Act, 1986) is applicable to the citizens of United Kingdom. The complaint is misconceived and, therefore, the same is dismissed. Nothing in order will preclude the complainant to seek relief from an appropriate forum.
...
(J.M. MALIK, J.) PRESIDING MEMBER (VINAY KUMAR) MEMBER dd/17