In a ruling by Mr Subhash Chandra from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Coca-Cola’s prize scheme, which offered the chance to win one of five Honda City cars among other prizes, was declared valid and not fraudulent. The case, Z. Ahmed vs M/s. Coca Cola India (Appeal No. 731 of 2007), also resulted in a compensation payment to a consumer who had pursued a complaint, believing he had won a car after purchasing a ‘lucky’ bottle.
Here are the details:
Back in September 1998, Coca-Cola launched a promotional scheme. Customers could win prizes if they found a bottle with a crown that had a yellow band. The top prizes were five Honda City cars. The consumer in question bought a bottle, and the printed liner matched the winning criteria as per the scheme’s Condition 6. He sent the liner to Coca-Cola via post.
Despite the rules stating that entries had to be submitted by ordinary post before October 28, 1998, the consumer alleged that Coca-Cola accepted entries via other postal methods through their appointed agency, M/s Bansal & Co., Chartered Accountants.
After not receiving a clear response, the consumer served a legal notice, which also went unanswered. He then took his complaint to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Delhi. The State Commission ruled that Coca-Cola had indulged in unfair trade practices. They argued that the chances of winning were so slim it could encourage people to buy Coca-Cola even if they wouldn’t usually, which was deceptive. The State Commission instructed Coca-Cola to contribute Rs. 1 Lakh to the State Consumer Welfare Fund and pay Rs. 25,000 as compensation to the consumer.
Unsatisfied, the consumer sought a review from the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), asking for increased compensation and a Honda City car.
The NCDRC noted that the State Commission had found Coca-Cola’s scheme to be an unfair trade practice as it enticed customers with prizes that only a handful would win. The consumer was compensated based on this finding. However, the NCDRC also noted that the Delhi High Court had previously deemed Coca-Cola’s scheme as genuine in Writ Petition (Civil) 6771/2207. Thus, the only question left was whether the consumer was considered a ‘consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act. The NCDRC concluded that he was indeed a consumer and therefore entitled to protection under the Act.
The NCDRC overruled the State Commission’s order, stating that Coca-Cola’s scheme was not fraudulent but a valid marketing strategy. Nonetheless, they recognized the consumer’s legitimate pursuit of the prize and the stress caused by not receiving it. As a result, the NCDRC ordered Coca-Cola to compensate the consumer with Rs. 25,000 for litigation costs.
In conclusion, this case highlights that though promotional schemes offering attractive prizes may seem too good to be true, they aren’t necessarily fraudulent. However, consumers should approach such schemes with a clear understanding of the odds and conditions.
