Scratch & win: Error can’t be regretted

Pushpa Girimaji

Three months ago, I bought an expensive mobile phone. At the time of purchase, the shop was offering a ‘scratch card’ to all customers as an incentive and I also got one. When I scratched my card, it said ‘10 gm of 24 K gold coin’. When I showed it to the retailer and asked him for the coin, he said such a prize was never in the scheme! He claimed that it was a mix-up at the printer’s level and asked me to try my luck with another scratch card. I refused to do so and am insisting on the coin. My question is, can he refuse to give me the gold coin saying that it was a printing error? Does this issue fall under the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act?

The facts are simple here. The retailer was offering a scratch card to promote his sale and he gave you one, asking you to try your luck. In other words, when he gave you the scratch card, he promised to give you whatever was printed on the card. He cannot now refuse to give you the gold coin, claiming it was a printing mistake! Doing so would constitute an unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act.

If there is a goof-up at the printer’s level as he claims, it is for him to resolve it with the printer by holding him responsible and recovering the cost of the gold coin from him. As far as you are concerned, he has to give you what was promised on the card.

Under the Consumer Protection Act, offering of gifts, prizes or other items with the intention of not giving them, or withholding the prize or gift from the participants of any such promotional scheme, clearly constitutes an unfair trade practice and consumers can seek redress against such practices before the consumer courts constituted under the Consumer Protection Act.

Can you quote a couple of cases decided by the consumer courts so that I can tell the retailer about it and ask him to give the promised coin?

I would like to quote here, Baby Anmol Mahajan Vs Videocon International Limited and Ors (RP No 145 of 2007), which also pertains to the consumer not getting what was promised on the scratch card.

On November 19, 2003, the complainant purchased a television set and was thrilled when the scratch card said ‘5 gms 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 that had he given the scratch card to the customer, promising a gift. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the consumer was entitled to the promised prize.

I must also mention here a recent order of the apex consumer court. It is slightly different from your case, but pertains to a dispute over a price offer, ‘Tyoharaon ki Saugat’, launched by Idea Cellular Limited in 2012 for pre-paid 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. The company even announced the name of the real winner and handed over the car keys 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 National Consumer Commission was of the view that Angad Kuumar was not the winner and, therefore, not entitled to the car. However, he ought to be compensated for the mental trauma undergone by him on account of the false hope created by the company through its message. The Commission, therefore, awarded a compensation of Rs 1 lakh and costs of Rs 5000 to the consumer. (Idea Cellular Vs Angad Kumar, RP No 2551 of 2017)