Companies float several schemes to lure consumers to buy their products. Offers persuade consumers to purchase their products in the hope of winning either the free gift or the ‘bonanza prize’, given to a select few on certain conditions.
Companies place onerous conditions on the customer who claims the prize stating vaious terms and conditions
Companies float several schemes to lure consumers to buy their products. Offers persuade consumers to purchase their products in the hope of winning either the free gift or the ‘bonanza prize’, given to a select few on certain conditions. The problem however starts when onerous conditions are put on the consumer who claims the prize.
This is unfair and the company cannot indulge in such practices, says the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission in M/s United Finance Company vs MS Subramanian.
The comapny had announced a prize scheme for persons who had deposited money with them. Subramanian learnt of the same and deposited a sum of Rs1000 in the company for a period of five years. A year later, Subramanian learnt that he was entitled to a prize of Rs1,00,000 on the deposit. The prize was to be collected at the time of maturity of the deposit and the depositor thus had to wait for another four years to collect his bonanza.
However, in the intervening period, Subramanian lost the fixed deposit receipt and was unable to produce the same. The company refused to give him his prize of Rs1,00,000 stating the terms and conditions said that the depositor, to claim his prize money, should produce the deposit receipt.
The matter reached the Consumer Courts. The company adhered to its original stance that the depositor was bound to produce the receipt.
The consumer produced in the court a declaration he had filed in the newspapers stating that he had lost the said receipt and that no one should use the same for any mala fide purpose. The State Commission, TN passed an order on the dispute that the firm was bound to pay the prize money.
In spite of this, the company dragged the consumer to the National Commission in appeal. The National Commission observed that the company had the option of taking a bond from the consumer for the amount on the lost receipt and reimburse the amount due on the same. It further stated that the State Commission had taken a proper decision regarding the prize money and refused to interfere in the order passed by it.
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}