1

Appeal No. 1091/2006

BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, BANGALORE.

DATED: 27/06/2007

PRESENT

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH : PRESIDENT

SRI.M. SHAMA BHAT : MEMBER

Appeal No. 1091/2006

1. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt.Ltd.,

a Co., Incorporated under the Provisions of the

Companies Act 1956

Having its Office at 34 KM Stone, National Highway No.4,

Theppada, BegurVillage,

Nelamangala - 562 123.

Bangalore.

Rep by its Chairman & CEO

2. Pepsico India Holdings Pvt.Ltd.,

a Co., Incorporated under the Provisions of the

Companies Act 1956

Having its Office at 34 KM Stone, National Highway No.4,

Theppada, BegurVillage,

Nelamangala - 562 123.

Bangalore.

Rep by its Manager

…. OPs before the DF

.....Appellant/s

(By Shri/Smt Arun Kumar )

-Versus-

1. Santosh

Narasimha Acharya,

Madhavanagar,

Kodavoor Post – 576 116.

Udupi.

…. Complainant before the DF

2. Kamath Distributors

Having Its registered Office at No. 4-4-56(A),

Kinni Mulki,

Udupi – 576 101.

3. Lalit Store & Juice Centre

Court Road,

Udupi – 576 101.

…. OPs before the DF

.....Respondent/s

(By Shri/Smt K.A.Ariga for R-I, R-II & III svd )

ORDER

JUSTICE CHANDRASHEKARAIAH, PRESIDENT

This appeal is by the OPs 1 & 2 challenging the order of the DF allowing the complaint of the complainant.

The counsel for the appellant is absent. However, we heard the respondent and looked into the records.

The case of the complainant is that relying upon the advertisement found on the bottle itself the complainant has purchased one Pepsi bottle from OP-4 and insisted OP-4 to handover Khufiya Card but OP-4 in turn informed the complainant since he has not received any Khufiya card from the manufacturer he is not in a position to give the same.

The benefit of that Khufiya card entitles a person to get his number considered for a prize in a draw. But the complainant is deprived of that benefit in view of the fact that the Khufiya Card was not given to him by OP-4. This has made the complainant to file the complaint before the DF alleging unfair trade tactics on the part of the OPs.

OPs 1 & 4 no doubt appeared through the counsel and filed their version before the DF. OPs 2 & 3 were remained absent in spite of service of notice.

After considering the evidence adduced by both the parties the DF allowed the complaint of the complainant with a direction to OP Nos.1 to 3 who are the manufacturers and distributors to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with cost of Rs.43/- of Pepsi bottle with interest at 12% per annum.

It is not in dispute that on the label affixed to the Pepsi bottle there is a printed matter mentioning ‘’ Get your Khufiya Card with this bottle” that means whoever purchased a bottle of Pepsi they are entitled for a Khufiya Card.

Admittedly the 4th OP who is the retailer has not handed over the Khufiya card to the complainant as he has not been supplied with Khufiya card by the manufacturer.

From this it is seen that the advertisement is virtually misleading the public. If the Khufiya card is not given to every purchaser of Pepsi bottle, in our view the DF is right in recording that the conduct of the OPs amounts to unfair trade practice.

The denial of Khufiya card by OP-4 has virtually deprived the complainant to get his number considered for a prize in the draw. Therefore, in our view the DF is right in ordering OPs 1 to 3 to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with Rs.43/- being the price of the Pepsi bottle with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the complaint till realization. In our view the object of awarding of the above said compensation in favour of the complainant is to see that the OP shall not repeat such things in a trade or business in future. Hence we find no reason to interfere in the impugned order. In the result, we pass the following:

O R D E R

Appeal is dismissed.

MEMBERPRESIDENT

n.r.r