Beauty Cosmetics Pvt.Ltd.,  Madras                         ...  Appellant
Vs.
Consumer Rights Protection Council, Madurai            ...  Respondent

   The appeal is against the order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madurai, dated 8-3-94 in O.P. No. 514/93. The 2nd Opposite Party is the Appellant.

2.    The Complainant is a voluntary Consumer Association registered under the Tamil Nadu Society Registration Act and this complaint is a public interest litigation. The 2nd Opposite Party, who is the appellant, is manufacturer of Chik Shampoo in satchets. The 1st Opposite Party is organising and conducting a contest in the name and style of "Kusbhu Cinema Contest" to promote the sale of Chik Shampoo. The 3rd Opposite Party is the Distributer of this product. The contest has been advertised to the following effect. Any person who sends two empty Chik Shampoo satchets can participate in the contest. The forms are published with the name of three films against each photo. The participant has to tick the correct name. He has also to complete the sentence "I love Chik Shampoo because .....................................," in not exceeding 10 wards. The SelectionCommittee will select the first, second, third and a bumper prize winner and 100 consolation prize winners. The first prize winner will get a BPL Colour TV set, the second prize winner will get a Godrej 165 liter Fridge, the 3rd prize winner will get a Philips Power House Audio System, the Bumper prize winner will get a Hero Honda Moto Cycle and each  of the 100 consolations prize winners will get a Chik wall Clock. According  to the Complainant this contest was designed to attract and lure lakhs and lakhs oc consumers to participate in the contest by producing two empty Chik Shampoo satchets and to boost the sales of this product. It is also not possible for the Selection Committee to verify the entries and select 104 winners. This is a disguised lottery scheme to promote the sale of Chik Shampoo. It is an unfari trade pratice within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (r) (3) (b) of the Consumer Protection Act of 1986 as ammended. The complainant has therefore, prayed for the declaration that his contest is an unfair trade practice, and directing the opposite parties to discontinue this practice, make necessary advertisements withdrawing this contest and deposit the value of the prizes into the Consumer Welfare Fund of the Government of India.

3.    The Opposite parties 1 & 2 have filed a joint counter denying all these allegations. It is pointed out that satchets of Chik Shampoo alone should be sent for participating in the contest, but empty satchets of any other brand may also be sent. It is also averred that the brand name "Chick" is well known in the market for over 8 years and there is no need to induce the consumers to buy themselves this sampoo. There is no smoke screen or camouflage or lottery element involved in this contest. It is denied that it would be difficult for the panel of Judges to verify and select the winners. This contest is intended only for ascertaining the consumer preference for Shampoo in general and the Chik  Shampoo in particular,. There is no unfair trade practice. The locus standi of the Complainant to file this complaint has therefore also been challenged.

4.    The 3rd Opposite Party contended that it was only a Distributer and was not in any way connected to this contest.

5.    The District Forum found that this contest was an unfair trade practice and directed the Opposite Parties to discontinue this practice, to make a suitable advertisement to that effect and to pay into the Consumer Welfare Fund the sum of Rs. 50,000/- being the value of the prizes offered. It also awarded costs of Rs.250/-. Aggrieved there by the Second  Opposite Party, who is the Manufacturer, has preferred this appeal.

6.    Tha maintainability of the complaint by the Complainants Association is challenged before us. Under Section 2 (1) b(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant means, "any voluntary consumer association registered under the Companies Act, 1956 or under any other law for the time being in force" The Complainant Association has been registered under the Tamil Nadu Societies Registration Act, with the distinctive No.287/87 and is therefore, entitled to maintain this complaint as a public interest litigation.

7.    Ex. Bl is the advertisement relating to this contest. It gives 5 photographs of Kusbhu acting in various films. Against each photograph 3 names of the films are given. The 1st photograph is an example , which shouws how the correct film has to be ticked. The contest is with respect to the photographs 2,3,4 & 5. The entrants to this contest has to enclose two empty shampoo satchets. He has also to fill up the sentence in not more than 10 wards the reason for preferring the Chik Shampoo. We have now to consider whether this contest is an unfair trade practice as defined under Section 2 (1) (r) 3 (b) under which the following practice is unfair trade practice.

"the conduct of any contest, lottery game of chance or skill, for the purpose of promoting, directly or indirectly, the sale, use or supply of any product or any business interest."

8.    It is first pointed out by the Appellant that the entry to this contest is not restricted to those who send two empty Chik Shampoo satchets only and the entrants can send satchets of any other brand of shampoo also. There was, therefore, no question of promoting the sale of Chik Shampoo. This argument has been rightly rejected by the District Forum. The advertisement for this contest is in the name of Chik Shampoo and the entrants have to  answer the question in 10 wards giving the reasons for preferring the Chik Shampoo. It is, therefore, futile to argue that this contest is open to anyone, who sends any empty shampoo satchets. It is intended onluy to those who send two Chik Shampoo empty satchets, which is said to cost Rs.1/- each. Every entrants has to send two empty Chik Shampoo satchets costing Rs.2/-. The prizes offered are in thousands of rupees. This is therefore, a clear case, where this contest begets a sprit of speculation and gaming that is often productive of serious evils.

9.    The argument based on Ex.B2 to B6 relating to advertisements made by other manufacturers in respect of various products cannot be accepted as they cannot be taken as prudence precedents.

10.   There is no doubt that it is possible for a number of entrants to correctly identify the name of the film pertaining to the photo of film star "Kusbhu",  but all of them are not entitled to any prize, out of them only 104 persons are selected on the basis of the answers gien by them for using Chik Shampoo and this 104 winners have to be selected by a panel of Judges. The fact that there is no process for selecting the winners is not the ground to hold that this partakes of the character of a lottery because all the winners are not chosed by drawing a lot. We do not, therfore, agree with the conclusion of the District Forum that this is a lottery.

11.   But, it is certainly a contest, it may even be a game of skill. But it is intended for the purpose of promoting directly or indirectly the sale, use or supply of Chik Shampoo product and is therefore, an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (r) 3 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act as amended. The conslusion of the District Forum that this is an unfair trade practice is, therefore, upheld.

12.   The District Forum has by virtue of the ammendments introduced by the Amendment Act, 1993, rightly directed the Opposite parties to discontinue this unfair trade practice and not to repeat the same. But the order of the District Forum directing the Opposite Party to make a publicating withdrawing the contest and directing the Opposite Parties to pay the sum of Rs.50,000/- to the Consumer Welfare Fund is outside the scope of Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. These two directions must, therefore, be struck down.

13.   In the result we order as follows :

(1)    The appeal is allowed in part, the order of the District Forum declaring that the contest published by the Opposite is an unfair trade practice, and directing the opposite party to discontinue the practice and not to repeat them is upheld.

(2)    The order of the District Forum directing the Opposite Parties to made a publication withdrawing the contest and directing the Opposite Parties to pay into the Consumer Welfare Fund the sum of Rs.50,000/- is set aside.

(3)    The order for costs will stand.

(4)    There will be no order as to costs in this appeal.