DISTRICT COMMISSION GRANTED RS 45,000 AS COMPENSATION TO A CONSUMER FOR BEING MISLED INTO BELIEVING HE WON A GOLD COIN ON BUYING A PRODUCT

The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission New Delhi directed Sun Pharmaceuticals (Sun) to pay Rs 45,000 as compensation to a consumer for misleading him into believing that he won a 25-gram gold coin on buying a packet of the Revital Capsule. The Bench of President AK Kuhar and members Rashmi Bansal and Dr. Rajender Dhar, directed to pay ₹40,000 to one Zamiruddin for the mental agony and ₹5,000 as litigation cost incurred since 2016.

The Commission was hearing a matter in which Sun Pharmaceuticals, the manufacturer of Revital Capsules, misled the complainant by an advertisement on the packet of the product. The complainant believed that he won a gold coin by getting a coupon on his purchase and following the directions mentioned in it. After completing the mentioned steps, which assured a gold coin, the complainant approached the medical shop. The medical shop owner said that he had no idea about the scheme but enquired the manufacturers about the winning status of the complainant. Later, the shop informed the complainant that he did not win any gold coin in the Contest. Hence, the complainant filed a case against the medical shop and manufacturers for cheating him by selling the product by misrepresentation.

The medical shop contended he was simply a pharmaceutical shop. However, the shop admitted that information regarding the winner was not posted anywhere and that it had no idea about who won the gold coin. On the other hand, the manufacturer shrugged off their responsibility by choosing not to appear before the commission.

The Commission noted that the manufacturer introduced a scheme to attract buyers but did not disclose that there would be a draw to get the coin. "An illiterate and easy consumer would easily get taken away by such catchy slogans. Moreover, even after the closure of the scheme, the result had never been made public", the same violates Section 2(3A) of the Consumer Protection Act.

The Court gave respite to the shop where the capsule was bought, stating that the owner was not a party to the agreement and had also done his duty by enquiring the manufacturers. The complainant was granted compensation of Rs 45,000 for the mental agony and litigation costs. 

Author: Papiha Ghoshal