Companies must ensure their offers, prizes are genuine
Here’s a note of caution to all manufacturers and retailers. If you are planning to woo consumers this festive season with lotteries and prizes, make sure that your offers are genuine and totally transparent. And execute the promised scheme efficiently and without a hitch. Or else, you may well end up fighting legal battles in the consumer court.
A recent order of the apex consumer court highlights the complications of an ill-executed prize offer. This particular case centred around a scheme called ‘Tyoharaon ki Saugat’ launched by Idea Cellular Limited in 2012 for pre-paid mobile Idea connection users in the UP Telecom circle. The prize was a Maruti Alto car.
According to the complainant, Angad Kumar, on November 30, 2012, he got a message on his mobile that he had won the prize, but he was not given the car. The company in turn argued that due to a manual error, the message about winning the car had gone to several subscribers. However, correction messages to ignore the earlier message were sent later, the same day.
Many of them filed complaints before the consumer forums seeking the prize and according to the company, these were all dismissed by the forums, since the company had published the name of the real winner and had given the car to him.
However, Angad Kumar’s contention was that he never received the subsequent message and was therefore entitled to the car or its price. The consumer courts at the district as well as the state level asked the company to give the complainant the car.
The National Consumer Commission however was of the view that Angad Kumar was not the winner and therefore not entitled to the car. However, he ought to be compensated for the mental trauma and harassment undergone by him on account of the negligence of the company. The Commission therefore awarded a compensation of ₹1 lakh and costs of ₹5,000. (Idea Cellular vs Angad Kumar, RP No 2551 of 2017)
This is not the first case of such goof-up in the execution of gift schemes. In the Directorate of Small Savings vs P. Raman (RP NO 1157 of 2002), the bumper prize had been given to the wrong Raman by the Directorate of Small Savings, Tamil Nadu government, forcing the real winner to seek the intervention of the consumer court.
In Baby Anmol Mahajan Vs Videocon International Limited and Ors (RP No 145 of 2007), the controversy centred around ‘Videocon Diwali Pathaka Ek Mein Char Ka Dhamaka,’ under which every purchaser of the television set got a scratch card and the gift indicated on the card.
On November 19, 2003, the complainant purchased a television set and was thrilled when the scratch card said ‘5 gm of gold’. However, Videocon International, Aurangabad, rejected his claim saying that the scheme was valid only from September 26 to October 31, 2003.
The dealer, however, stated that he had been instructed by the manufacturer to dispose of the stock along with the scratch card and it was only on those directions had he given the scratch card to the customer, promising a gift. The National Commission held that the consumer was entitled to the promised prize.
I must mention that offering of gifts, prizes or other items with the intention of not giving them, or creating an impression that these are being offered free when their cost is either fully or partially covered by the amount charged in the transaction, constitutes an unfair trade practice. Similarly, withholding from the participants of any scheme offering gifts and prizes, information about the final results or the prize, is also an unfair trade practice and consumers can seek redress against such practices before the consumer courts.