National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Jyothish Chandran vs Zee Tele Films Pvt. Ltd. on 5 July, 2016
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI CONSUMER CASE NO. 44 OF 2005 1. JYOTHISH CHANDRAN S/o. K. Nanjundaswamy,R/o. Neharu Badavane, 4th Block, Kushalnagar, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu ...........Complainant(s) Versus 1. ZEE TELE FILMS PVT. LTD. Rep. By It's Managing Director., Anderi East, Mumbai -18 - 2. M/s. Playwin Infravest Pvt. Ltd. Rep. By It's Managing Director, 135, Continental Building, Dr. Annebeasant Road, Worli, Mumbai - 400 018. 3. E-Cool Gaming Solution Pvt. Ltd. 4th Floor, Bank Box Building, Worli Mumbai 4. Mr. Subashchandra, Aged Major Chairman, Zee Tele Films Pvt. Ltd., Andheri East, Mumbai - 400 099. 5. Mr. Abhay Gurg Distributor to Karnataka State, Playwin Online Centre, 204, Jiniva House, Kunningham Road, Banglore 6. Mr. Gururaj NG Associates, No. 30, Grasscut, 1st Cross Road, 4th Block, Jayalaxmipuram, Mysore - 12. 7. Mr. Athmaram NG Associates No. 30, Grasscut, 1st Cross Road, 4th Block, Jayalaxmipuram, Mysore -12 8. Smt. Kasthuri W/o. V.N. Maheshkumar, Benaka Playwin On-line Centre, I.B. Road, Kushalnagar, Somwarpet Taluk, Kodagu 9. Government of Maharashtra Represented by the Commissioner of Small Savings and State Lotteries, Secretariat, Mumbai Maharashtra ...........Opp.Party(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER HON'BLE MRS. REKHA GUPTA, MEMBER
For the Complainant : Mr. D P Chaturvedi, Advocate For the Opp.Party : Mr. Meet Malhotra, Sr. Advocate assisted by
Mr. Rohan Swarup, Adv. For OP No. 1 to 4 and
6 to 8
OP No. 5 and 9 already ex parte
Dated : 05 Jul 2016 ORDER
JUSTICE AJIT BHARIHOKE, PRESIDING MEMBER
1.N Jyotish Chandran has filed the present consumer complaint against the nine opposite parties complaining of deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties on the premise that opposite parties did not pay the lottery prize money won by the complainant.
2. Briefly stated salient facts culled out from the pleadings of the parties are that opposite party no.1 is a body Corporate engaged in the business of TV media properly known as "Zee TV".
3. That the Government of Maharashtra (OP No.9) launched a nationwide lottery scheme under the name and style "Maha Lotto", online lottery. The scheme was one of the largest jackpot game.
4. That the said lottery was launched by the State of Maharashtra OP No.9 on 06.01.2003. The lottery scheme was published and marketed by OP Nos. 3 to 6 who were associates / agents of opposite party no.1. OP No.3 to 6 were authorised as marketing agents of the aforesaid online lottery.
5. That opposite party no.1 with a view to increase the sale of "Maha Lotto" tickets, announced a scheme of online daily lottery for the purchase of ticket of Maha Lotto with various prizes including jackpot prize of Rupees One crore. That as per the daily lottery scheme introduced by OP No.1, the purchaser of the lottery ticket had an option to choose any six numbers and in case the number of the lottery ticket purchased by the consumer matched with the winning numbers, the consumer would be entitled to prize of rupees one crore. One could purchase lottery ticket online only and online sale of lottery tickets was so programmed that sale of lottery ticket would automatically stop at a specific time before the daily draw of lot. The draw of lots was televised online on daily basis on TV channel run by opposite party no. 1.
6. It is alleged that complainant on 06.01.2003 purchased Maha Lotto ticket from OP No.8 and opted for the numbers 02,03,05,30,40 and 53. After the purchase of the ticket, complainant viewed the live draw of winning ticket and found that the number of his ticket matched in toto with the winning ticket. It is alleged that on the next day, opposite party no.8 gave a wide publicity to the effect that the complainant had won the prize money of rupees one crore.
7. That when the complainant approached opposite party no.8 to claim his prize, opposite party no.8 told him that claim form was not readily available and the form would be available within a week. Thereafter, the complainant approached opposite party no. 4 to 7 over telephone requesting them to provide the claim form at the cost of the complainant but in vain. The opposite parties, however, assured him that the prize would be paid to him. The opposite parties, however, failed to pay the prize amount of rupees one crore to the complainant. Claiming this to be deficiency in service as also the unfair trade practice, the complainant raised a consumer dispute.
8. The complaint was initially filed before the State Commission Delhi. The opposite parties raised the objection against maintainability of consumer complaint before the State Commission on the ground of pecuniary jurisdiction. The State Commission vide order dated 16.07.2014 took the view that it did not have the pecuniary jurisdiction. The appeal against the order of the State Commission was dismissed by the National Commission. Therefore, the complainant filed the consumer complaint before the National Commission.
9. On being served with the notice of the consumer complaint, OP Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 to 8 filed a joint written statement wherein it was alleged that on 25.07.2010 Government of Maharashtra invited bids for appointment of agent for "Online Lottery System". Pursuant to the said invitation, financial bids were submitted by various bidders including OP No.3 M/s E-Cool Gaming Solution Pvt. Ltd. ( hereinafter referred as E-Cool. Bid of M/s E-Cool ( OP No.3) was accepted and OP No.3 was appointed as agent by marketing all forms of online lotteries run by Government of Maharashtra.
10. That OP No.2 M/s Playwin Infravest Pvt. Ltd. ( hereinafter referred as Playwin) is the provider of infrastructure to M/s E-Cool and the lottery is conducted in accordance with Maharashtra On-line Lottery Rules 2001. As per the agreement with Government of Maharashtra, Opposite Party E-Cool was expected to generate maximum revenue. OP No.2 E-Cool accordingly entered into an agreement with OP No.1 M/s Zee Telefilms Ltd. for promoting the lottery.
11. That pursuant to the agreement dated 31.12.2002 with M/s E-Cool, Zee Telefilms Ltd, on 06.01.2003 introduced a scheme called Zee TV Free Prize Offer ( hereinafter referred to as Scheme)
12. As per the scheme, the purchaser of Rs.100/- Maha Lotto, lottery ticket would be entitled to participate in Zee TV Free Prize without buying a separate ticket or paying a separate consideration in any manner whatsoever. As per the scheme, the purchaser of Maha Lotto ticket was allowed to play upto three panel games. The purchaser was supposed to select six number panel on his own or he could select the lucky pick option by simply marking the lucky pick box on that panel. If the six numbers would match with the daily draw conducted by Zee TV online, the purchaser of the ticket would won rupees one crore.
13. It is the case of the opposite parties that participation in the Zee TV prize offer was permitted only if the lottery ticket holder had purchased the lottery ticket in question atleast a day prior to the Zee TV Prize Offer show in which winning numbers are announced.
14. It is further the case of the contesting opposite parties that on 06.01.2003 the draw of result was telecasted live on Zee TV at 21:12:55 hours and it ended at 21:16: 30 hours. The winning prize number 02,03,05,30, 40 & 53 was announced between aforesaid time. It is the case of the opposite parties that the complainant purchased Maha Lotto ticket on 6.1.2003 at 21: 17 hours after declaration of result by selecting the winning numbers which were already announced on the show few minutes earlier. The absence of words "LP" on the ticket makes it clear that the number of the tickets were chosen by the complainant and were not randomly given by the computer. As the complainant had purchased the subject lottery ticket on 06.01.2003 after announcement of the result, he is not entitled to any prize because only tickets purchased one day prior to the live draw could be eligible for the prize money. On the aforesaid allegations, the answering opposite parties have pleaded that they have not committed any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice by declining the claim of the complainant. So far as Op No. 5 and 9 are concerned, they failed to put in appearance despite of service of notice of complaint. They were, therefore, proceeded ex parte.
15. In support of his contention, complainant has adduced evidence by way of his affidavit. OP No.1 has also filed affidavit of Mr. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, Manager (Legal) Zee Telefilms and produced the documentary evidence.
16. Learned Shri D.P. Chaturvedi, Advocate for the complainant has contended that undisputedly the complainant had purchased "Maha Lotto" lottery ticket online from opposite party No.8 and opted for the Nos.02,03,05,30, 40 & 53 which numbers tallied with the winning numbers declared in the daily online lottery shown on the T.V. programme run by opposite party Zee T.V. on 6.1.2003. It is contended that undisputedly the winning prize of rupees one crore has not been paid to the complainant which obviously amounts to deficiency in service.
17. Learned counsel for the opposite parties on the contrary has contended that the complaint is liable to be dismissed firstly on the ground that the complainant is not a consumer as defined under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as such he cannot invoke the consumer jurisdiction. It is further contended that the complaint is also liable to be dismissed on the ground that purchasing of a lottery ticket amounts to a wagering contract, thus void and unenforceable in view of Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. In support of this contention, learned counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment of Haryana State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chandigarh in the matter of Jagdish Chand vs. Director, Sikkim State Lotteries and Ors. III (1993) CPJ 1702 as also the judgment of M.P. High Court in the matter of Subhash Kumar Manwani vs State Of M.P. And Ors. 2000 (1) MPLJ 153. On merits it is contended that the opposite parties were justified in refusing to honour the lottery ticket of the complainant because it was purchased after the announcement of the winning numbers. It is contended that the complainant after having watched the result of lottery draw live on Zee T.V. programme noted the winning numbers and purchased the lottery ticket and opted for the same numbers on same day after the announcement of result. Therefore, he is not entitled to the prize because the lottery tickets purchased at least a day earlier to the draw were eligible for participating in the scheme.
18. We have considered the rival contentions and perused the written submissions filed by the parties as also the record.
19. Admittedly the cause of action giving rise to this complaint is non-payment of prize money by the opposite parties to the complainant on his lottery ticket which allegedly won the daily online prize amounting to rupees one crore as announced in the live T.V. show run by one of the opposite parties i.e. Zee T.V. on 6.1.2003. Contention of the opposite parties is that irrespective of the merits of the case, as purchase of a lottery amounts to an agreement by way of wager, it is a void contract under section 30 of Indian Contract Act, therefore not enforceable.
20. In order to appreciate the contention of learned counsel for the opposite parties, it would be useful to have a look on Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 which reads as under: -
"Agreements by way of wager are void; and no suit shall be brought for recovering anything alleged to be won on any wager, or entrusted to any person to abide the result of any game or other uncertain event on which any wager is made."
21. A bare reading of the above leaves no doubt in our mind that any contract by way of wager is void and no suit or proceedings can be brought for recovering a sum alleged to have been won pursuant to any wager contract. Admittedly the instant consumer complaint has been filed on the allegation of failure on the part of the opposite parties to pay him the amount of rupees one crore against his winning lottery ticket. Thus, the question which needs an answer is whether the lottery is a wagering contract?
22. The word "Lottery" as per the Webster's dictionary means: -
"Á scheme for the distribution of prize by lot or chances, specially a scheme by which one or more prizes are distributed by chance among persons who have paid or promised a consideration for a chance to win them, usually as determined by the numbers on tickets as drawn from a lottery wheel."
Yet again in Murray's Dictionary the following meaning is given to the word Lottery:
"An arrangement for distribution of prizes by chance among persons purchasing tickets."
23. From the above it is clear that the lottery is dependent purely upon chance in the fortuitous mode on draw of lots. There is no element of skill or judgment involved therein and the winning of a lottery is dependent upon succeeding in draw of lot beyond any predictability. Thus, it is clear that the lottery is purely a gaming or wagering transaction which in view of Section 30 of the Indian Contract is void and unenforceable in a court of law.
24. Having taken the view that a lottery transaction is void and unenforceable in a civil court, the question arises whether the position would be in any way different in the consumer law? In our considered view the position would remain the same under the consumer law also. The basic consumer right flow from the contracts of sale and purchase of goods or hiring or availing of services for consideration. If the contract itself is void in view of Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act the party to the wagering contract agreement inevitably would have no right flowing from the void contract even in consumer law jurisdiction. Taking any other view would, in our opinion, go against the object and spirit of Section 30 of the Indian Contract Act.
25. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the considered view that the subject contract between the parties being wagering contract is null and void and therefore the consumer jurisdiction cannot be invoked by the complainant to avail of benefit under a void contract. Thus, the complaint is liable to be dismissed on this count alone.
26. Even on merits the complainant does not have a case. Case of the opposite parties is that they have rightly denied the prize money to the complainant because he had purchased the lottery ticket after the announcement of the result of draw on 6.1.2003 which was telecasted live on Zee T.V. at 21:12:55 hrs. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, Manager Legal of Zee Telefilms Ltd. in his affidavit evidence has categorically stated that on 6.1.2003 the draw result was telecasted life on Zee T.V. at 21:12:55 hrs for 3 minutes and the show timing was upto 21:16:30 in which numbers 02,03,05,30, 40 & 53 were declared as winning numbers This averment has not been seriously controverted by the complainant by cross-examining Shri Rajesh Kumar Chaudhary, Manager Legal. Therefore, it is deemed to have been accepted as correct. Thus, it is established that draw of lot was shown live on Zee T.V. programme on 6.1.2003 during the period 21:12:55 hrs to 21:16:30 hrs in which the winning numbers were shown. It is the case of the opposite parties that the subject ticket which is the basis of the complaint was purchased online by the complainant at 21:17 hrs. on 6.1.2003. The complainant has categorically mentioned in para 2 of his rejoinder that the time of purchase is mentioned on the ticket as 21:17 on 6.1.2003. Thus, it is clear that the complainant had purchased the subject lottery ticket after the announcement of result of draw shown live on T.V. show aired by Zee T.V on 06.01.2003 between 21:12:55 hrs. to 21:16:30 hrs. Thus, a possibility cannot be ruled out that the complainant after coming to know the winning numbers from the life show purchased the ticket and opted for the same numbers with a view to make wrongful gains. Otherwise also, counsel for the opposite parties has drawn our attention to the scheme of Maharashtra Lotto which reads as under:
"HOW TO PLAY MAHA LOTTO Pick up a Maha Lotto playslip from your nearest online gaming outlet. Each playslip allows you to play upto 3 panels or games. Pay Rs.100 per game.
Select 6 numbers per panel by striking them (as shown below). If you want the terminal to select the numbers for you, you may select the 'Lucky Pick' option by simply marking the 'Lucky Pick' box on that panel.
HOW TO WIN You have hundreds of opportunities to win big money. All on a single ticket of Rs.100 only.
Here's how MATCH WIN DRAW DATE 6 Numbers Maha Jackpot Rs.50 crores (minimum assured) First draw Sunday, 30th March 2003 5 Numbers Rs.25 lakhs (para mutual)** 4 Numbers Rs.10,000 guaranteed 3 Numbers Rs.500 guaranteed ** May vary depending on no. or winners and total prize pool.
Continue winning on the same ticket in the Zee TV free prize offer.
MATCH FREE PRIZES DRAW OF SHOW 6 Numbers Rs.1 crore* Everyday Starting 06.01.2003. Daily on Zee TV. Mon to Sat. between 9 p.m. -9.30p.m.
6 Numbers Upto Rs.4 crores Every Sunday Starting 12.01.2003. Rs.1 crore every half hour, every Sunday on Zee TV, starting 8 p.m. Zee TV Viewer's Quiz Rs.50 lakhs Every Sunday Contest starts on 06.01.2003 and first show on 19.01.2003 on Zee TV 3 Numbers Watch the show live on Zee TV. The Zee TV free prize offer is applicable on all valid Maha Lotto tickets bought on or before the day previous to the show.
*The Zee TV free prize offer is free to all valid ticket holders of Maha Lotto as a marketing promotion by Zee TV.
24 hours helpline (free call):1600229393* wwwmyplaywin.com M/s Playwin Infravest Pvt. Ltd. are the infrastructure and marketing service provides to M/s E. Cool Gaming Solutions Pvt. Ltd. the authorised marketing agents of Maharashtra State Online Lottery. All prizes are subject to Maharashtra State Online Lottery Rules 2001, and the decision of the Government of Maharashtra in case of any dispute will be final."
27. On reading of the above, it is clear that Zee T.V. free prize offer was applicable on all valid Maharashtra Lotto tickets brought on or before the day previous to the show meaning thereby that only the tickets purchased upto 5.1.2003 were eligible for participation in the draw of lot pertaining to Zee T.V. free prize offer conducted and shown life on Zee T.V. programme on 6.1.2003.
28. From the discussion above, it is clear that the subject ticket was purchased by the complainant on 6.1.2003 after the announcement of the result of draw of lot. Therefore, there is no doubt in our mind that the subject ticket was not eligible for inclusion in the draw of lot dated 6.1.2003 shown live between 21:12:55 hrs to 21:16:30 hrs. Thus, we conclude that the opposite parties were justified in denying the prize money to the complainant and they have not committed any deficiency in service and that the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
29. In view of the discussion above, the complaint is dismissed with no order as to cost.
......................J AJIT BHARIHOKE PRESIDING MEMBER ...................... REKHA GUPTA MEMBER