National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Punjab Backward Classes Land ... vs Kulbir Singh And Ors. on 13 November, 2002
ORDER
D.P. Wadhwa, J. (President)
1. The appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission. There were three complainants who are respondents who filed a joint complaint seeking a direction from the State Commission that they be given delivery of Ceilo Cat or in the alternative, a sum of Rs. 5,29,723/- being the price of the car along with interest @ 18% p.a. from 30.9.1997. They also sought further damages for mental agony, harrassment, etc. The State Commission by the impugned order allowed the complaint and held that these were the complainants who were entitled to Ceilo Car given as a prize by RGP Ricoh Ltd. manufacturer photocopiers in a draw to the purchasers of photocopiers. It was the petitioner - the opposite party who had taken Ceilo Car as prize from RGP Ricoh Ltd. to which the complainants said they were entitled to being the purchasers.
2. A scheme was floated by RGP Ricoh Ltd. offering prizes to those who purchased their photocopiers and for which prizes, lottery was to be held and those whose names appeared in the draw to be held among the purchasers. It so happened that when the complainants approached the petitioner for finance to buy three different Ricoh photocopiers, the petitioner itself purchased the photocopiers in its own name. As luck would favour it, the petitioner got the prize of Ceilo Car in the lottery. The complainants state that since they were the purchasers of the Ricoh photocopier, they were entitled to the prize. It was the contention of the petitioner that the invoice was in the name of the petitioner who purchased the three Ricoh photocopiers. For purchase of each photocopier, 18 refil coupons were to be issued by RGP Ricoh Ltd. In this way the petitioner must have got 54 refil coupons and one of such coupon resulted in the Ceilo Car in prize. It has been pointed out that the invoice was in the name of the petitioner. It does appear that when the scheme was floated by RGP Ricoh Ltd., me petitioner had got wiser and in anticipation of providing the finance, purchased the three photocopiers in its own name. As far as RGP Ricoh Ltd. is concerned, it had to give the Ceilo Car to the petitioner in whose name the invoice was prepared. The price of the car admittedly at that time was Rs. 5,29,723/-. That was on 30.9.1997. It was subsequently sold by public auction by the petitioner on a direction of the State Government for a sum of Rs. 1,63,383/-.
3. We have been unable to appreciate the method adopted by the petitioner in buying the photocopiers in its own name and thus appropriating the prize to which only the actual purchaser of Ricoh photocopier was entitled to. But then could it be said that Ceilo Car also forms part of the consideration for purchase of the Ricoh photocopiers either by the petitioner or any of the complainants. That to our mind, could not be so. To this extent, it is difficult to hold that the complainants were consumers visa-vis the petitioner. RGP Ricoh Ltd. could not have given the prize to the complainants as the invoice did not stand in their names and as far as the Company is concerned, it was the petitioner who was the purchaser though it was said that purchase was for and on behalf of the complainant. That however could be a consumer dispute. Then the question arises as to how could three complainants join in one complaint and assuming that each of them was a separate purchaser and was entitled to 18 refil coupons could it be said which one of the three complainants would be successful in the draw entitled to the prize of Ceilo Car. We do not think it was a case where the State Commission should have entertained the complaint. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. No order as to costs.