Manufacturers and traders often come up with attractive schemes by way of marketing strategies to promote sales of their products, but fail to honour their commitment. Here is a case of a person who was entitled to participate in a lucky draw, but was denied the opportunity, for which he was compensated by the consumer courts.
Santosh bought a bottle of Pepsi. The advertisement on the bottle advertised a scheme, where the purchaser was entitled to a 'Khufiya Card' on purchase. The card had a number, making the holder eligible for a prize if his number was picked up in a lucky draw. Since the card was not given, Santosh asked the shopkeeper to give it to him, but was told that PepsiCo had not sent any cards.
Aggrieved at having lost the opportunity to participate in the lucky draw, Santosh filed a consumer complaint, alleging an unfair trade practice. The complaint was filed against PepsiCo, its distributor and the shopkeeper.
PepsiCo unsuccessfully defended the complaint. The forum held the company and its distributors liable to refund the cost of Rs 43 paid for the bottle and to pay a compensation of Rs 1 lakh, along with interest at 12 per cent annually. PepsiCo challenged this order in appeal. The Karnataka State Commission observed the label affixed to the Pepsi bottle mentioned: "Get your Khufiya Card with this bottle," which meant whoever purchased a bottle was entitled to get a Khufiya Card. When this fact was undisputedly established, the failure to give the card along with the bottle as advertised would amount to misleading the public and constitute an unfair trade practice. The State Commission concluded that Santosh had lost the opportunity to participate in the lucky draw and for this, he was entitled to compensation. The Commission dismissed PepsiCo's appeal.
PepsiCo, then, approached the National Commission. It argued the compensation was disproportionately high and Santosh ought to have refused to accept the bottle when the card was not given to him. The company alleged he bought the bottle with the intention of filing a complaint to claim compensation.
In its judgment of September 30, 2015, delivered by the Bench of Justice Ajit Bharihoke and Rekha Gupta, the National Commission observed Santosh's conduct could not be faulted. On the contrary, Santosh has acted as an enlightened consumer. It upheld the conclusion that the company was guilty of unfair trade practice, but felt the compensation was disproportionately high. Accordingly, the amount of compensation was reduced to Rs 58,000.
The writer is a consumer activist
