Consumer court rejects doctor`s claim of winning contest
The National Consumer Commission has dismissed a petition by a doctor, who claimed to have won a slogan completion contest organised by a mobile service provider, for sending the answer to a wrong number.
New Delhi: The National Consumer Commission
has dismissed a petition by a doctor, who claimed to have won
a slogan completion contest organised by a mobile service
provider, for sending the answer to a wrong number.
It agreed with the decision of the West Bengal State
Consumer Commission which found no fault of Vodafone Essar
East Ltd in rejecting the claim of the doctor over the prize
-- a Kinetic Velocity motorcycle.
"Having considered findings of the State Commission on
fact, for which there cannot be any reappraisal in revision,
that the slogan was sent to the company on an invalid number,
he was not eligible for the prize, which he was claiming from
the company," the NCDRC headed by S K Naik said.
"There appears to be neither material irregularity nor
jurisdictional error requiring interference in the order of
State Commission on revision," it said.
The Commission rejected the contention of the doctor,
saying that he was not eligible for the prize as he had sent
the completed slogan on an invalid number due to which his
participation was not registered.
"Even though the slogan was required to be transmitted to
the company on a number bearing 8243, it is not in dispute
that the slogan was transmitted on a number which bore
82436018, which was admittedly not a valid number, and
petitioner had sent message on invalid command," it said.
It passed the order on a petition by the doctor, Anupam
Bhattacharya, seeking directions to the company to hand him
over the motorcycle which he claimed to have won in the slogan
completion contest for being the top scorer.
Earlier, the District Consumer Forum directed the company
to hand over the motorcycle to the petitioner besides paying a
compensation of Rs 5,000 to him.
But the State Commission reversed the decision, saying
that there was no credible evidence that the petitioner had
won the contest and the company had congratulated him for
winning the prize.