NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

NEW DELHI

 

First Appeal No. 135 of 2005

(From the order dated 25th February, 2005 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore in Complaint No. 106 of 2001)

 

 

Pepsi Cola India Manufacturing Co.                                                                 Appellant

(PepsiCo India Holdings Pvt. Ltd.)

Plot No. 67, Industrial Suburb II Stage

Yeshwanthapura, Bangalore

 

Versus

 

M. Rajappa                                                                                                      Respondent

R/o Nallur Village, Channagiri Taluka

Davanagere District

 

BEFORE:

 

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. B. SHAH                                                     PRESIDENT

HON’BLE MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO,                                                     MEMBER

HON’BLE MR. ANUPAM DASGUPTA                                                         MEMBER

 

 

For the Appellant                                                  Mr. Siddhartha Luthra, Sr. Advocate

                                                                                                       Mr. D. Negi, Advocate

                                                                                              Mr. Dheeraj Nair, Advocate

 

For the Respondent                                                        Mr. K. Maruthi Rao, Advocate

21st May, 2008

 

ORDER

 

ANUPAM DASGUPTA

 

            This appeal challenges the order dated 25th February, 2005 of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (the ‘State Commission’) in complaint no. 106 of 2001. By this order, the State Commission directed the Opposite party – Pepsi Cola India Manufacturing Co. to pay to the complainant Rs.5 lakh with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till its realization, in addition to damages of Rs.10,000/- for mental agony and hardship and cost of Rs.5,000/-.

 

2.         The facts of the case are simple.

 

The complainant (respondent in this appeal) is a resident of Nallur Village, Channagiri Taluka, Davanagere District, Karnataka and runs a restaurant called Raj Bahavan / New Raj Bahavan. He purchased several bottles of Pepsi Cola pursuant to the advertisements issued by the appellant in various newspapers and on Television as well as Radio, announcing a scheme titled, ‘Hai Koi Jawab’. This promotional scheme of Pepsi was to run for four fortnights upto 31st July 2001. The essential features of the scheme (rules and regulations) were published simultaneously in the advertisements. These rules showed that the offer was in respect of ‘red ringed crown of Pepsi sold in bottles of 300 ml, 250 ml and 200 ml. If a person bought any such bottle of Pepsi with a red ringed crown containing a pre-announced winning number under the crown, she/he was entitled to a prize. The prizes were offered on a ‘first-cum-first-served’ basis, every fortnight, for four fortnights in a row. For every fortnight, there were five first prizes, each of Rs.5 lakh; 250 second prizes of Rs.10,000/- each; and third prizes of three bottles of Pepsi of 300 ml.

The appellant also engaged the services of a firm of auditors to monitor and supervise the scheme. The scheme also announced that if a person bought Pepsi bottle(s) (350 ml, 250 ml or 200 ml) with the red ringed crown(s) and the crown(s) contained the three digit winning number, she/he was first required to inform the representative of the appellant at pre-announced telephone numbers the details of her/his own identification and the winning number and code number printed under the crown. For the first and the second prizes, the representatives of the appellant company were required to collect the winning crown(s) from the winner(s) and send them to the Auditors for verification and advising the company to issue cheque(s) for the prize money.

 

3.         The case of the complainant was that he bought several bottles of Pepsi during the period of the scheme and on noticing the winning number 420 under the crown of a bottle; he contacted the company directly to claim the first prize of Rs.5 lakh. The appellant company, however, did not accede to his request. Aggrieved by this, the complainant sent a legal notice to the appellant company and followed it up with a complaint filed before the State Commission, with the result already mentioned.

 

4.         The State Commission held that the complainant was a ‘consumer’ under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (the ‘Act’) and the appellant company’s refusal to give him the prize money of Rs. 5 lakh, when the complainant fulfilled the requisite conditions, amounted to unfair trade practice under the provisions of section 2(1)(r) of the Act. During the complaint proceedings, the opposite party/appellant raised several legal objections, including the one that the complainant, having purchased a large number of Pepsi bottles in May 2001 for resale at his restaurant mentioned above, was not a ‘consumer’ of ‘service’ within the definitions in sections 2(1)(d) and 2(1)(o) of the Act. The appellant company also cited an order of this Commission in support of its contention that the complainant was not entitled to file a complaint under the Act and to claim the prize money of Rs.5 lakh under the scheme in question.

5.         The crown of the Pepsi bottle on the strength of which the complainant had claimed the prize money, was produced in the appeal proceedings before us. It was noticed in our order dated 26th March, 2008 that the Pepsi bottle crown (bearing No. 420 and Code S2A) produced by the complainant was a ‘blue ringed crown’. The said crown was returned to the learned Counsel for the respondent/complainant on the same day and the learned Counsel for the appellant company was granted time of four weeks to file the details of the two schemes, the respective applicable rules and the list of prize winners under each scheme in question.

 

6.         Accordingly, the learned counsel for the appellant produced before us the relevant documents. These documents show that the appellant company’s earlier scheme titled ‘Mera Number Aayega’, valid till 16th August, 2000, was in respect of Pepsi bottles (300 ml, 250 ml and 200 ml) with ‘blue ringed crowns’. However, the scheme under which the complainant had claimed his prize was clearly a later scheme in respect of Pepsi bottles of the same volumes but with ‘red ringed crowns’, valid for the period ending 31st July, 2001. This fact is also clear from the photocopies of the newspaper advertisements published in various local languages like Gujarati, Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada, etc., produced before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. The advertisement, published in the Times of India (Delhi Times, Monday the 4th June, 2001) showed the winning number 420 and also mentioned the ‘red ringed crown’.. The Pepsi bottle crown produced by the complainant before us bore the same number 420 but it had a ‘blue ringed crown’ and not a ‘red ringed crown’. Among the documents produced, there was also a list of the prize winners of the two schemes, viz., ‘Mera number Aayega’ and ‘Hai koi Jawab’. The list clearly showed the names and other details of the first prize winners of each scheme. Thus, there is no material to prove that the appellant had unfairly denied the first prize of the later scheme to the complainant. In view of this factual position, it is also not necessary to go into the questions of law raised in the complaint or this appeal.

7.         Before parting, we would like to observe that it is rather surprising that in its pleadings before the State Commission, the appellant company/opposite party did not somehow bring out the above-mentioned crucial distinction between its two similarly designed schemes. Had that been done, instead of devoting time to spending money on legal hair-splitting before the State Commission, the latter would have surely taken a similar view. Perhaps even more relevant, the appellant company could have written a detailed letter to the complainant conveying the factual position. In all likelihood, that would have satisfied the consumer and nipped the dispute in the bud. There is no evidence of the appellant company taking that preliminary step. Large multi national companies (MNCs) need not compel consumers to approach the Consumer Fora and then press legal issues simply for the sake of doing so. This tendency involves the consumers (and the MNCs too) in unnecessary litigation, clogs up the channels of redressal at the cost of genuine and more pressing consumer grievances and also does not add to either the profits that the MNCs pursue or the brand equity / reputation that they spend large amounts to publicise and promote.

 

8.         In view of this discussion, the complainant’s case fails and the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside. The parties will bear their own costs.

...............................................

[M. B. SHAH, J]

PRESIDENT

…………………………………

[RAJYALAKSHMI RAO]

MEMBER

 

................................................

[ANUPAM DASGUPTA]

MEMBER