HIGH COURT OF KERALA
Hon'ble Mr. Justice V. Chitambaresh W.P.(C) No. 15883 of 2010 Dated this the 4th Day of January, 2012 For Petitioner :
For Respondents :
Head Note:- Grand Kerala Shopping Festival - Misplaced the Coupon - No justification on the part of the Director of 'GKSF' in not releasing the prize to the petitioner on the premise that the original Coupon is not produced. The only endeavour is to find out the real prize winner for which the production of the purchase bill and proof of address is sufficient. J U D G M E N T 1. Grand Kerala Shopping Festival ('GKSF' for short) is an annual event conducted by the Department of Tourism of the State to woo Consumers and also to benefit Traders. 'GKSF' is widely publicised in print and visual medias and is usually conducted during the Christmas-New Year season. There are normally three categories of prizes such as (i) Scratch-N-Win prizes (ii) Weekly Prizes and (iii) Mega Prizes. The. customer who purchases articles from the member shops of 'GKSF' for amounts exceeding a particular monetary limit would be issued a Coupon. The bill number and the address of the customer has to be filled in the counter foil of the coupon before it is dropped in the box kept in the shop. There would be a draw of the counter foils dropped in the box and similar boxes and the lucky winner duly intimated later about the result. The prize would be released to the winner of lots on production of the Coupon, purchase bill and document evidencing proof of address. 2. The petitioner purchased gold jewellery worth Rs. 17,840/- from a shop named 'Malabar Ornaments Pvt. Ltd.' who was a member of the scheme of 'GKSF'. Ext.P1 purchase bill issued by the jewellery shop reveals that the petitioner had paid the amount in addition to returning old jewellery. The petitioner learnt that she was one among the six first prize winners and Ext.P2 is the result of the draw downloaded from the website of 'GKSF'. The petitioner subsequently received Ext.P3 letter from the State Co-ordinator of 'GKSF' which inter alia reads as follows:- "CONGRATULATIONS for winning 10 Sovereign Gold (equivalent to 74 grams of 24 Ct. Federal Pure Gold) in Grand Kerala Shopping Festival with Coupon No.272114." The latter reached the petitioner only because the counter foil of the Coupon contained all details such as her address and number of the purchase bill. 3. The petitioner though retained the purchase bill had misplaced the Coupon and could not trace it out despite her best efforts. The petitioner therefore submitted Ext.P4 representation to the Director of 'GKSF' producing along with it the purchase bill and identity proof. The application for claiming 'GKSF' prize was accompanied by the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India and the Passport of the petitioner. The petitioner followed it up by addressing Exts.P6 and P7 letters to the Director of 'GKSF' seeking to release the first prize of 10 sovereigns gold. The Director of 'GKSF' however took the stand in Ext.P8 reply letter that the prize cannot be released since the original Coupon is lost. It is under these circumstances has the writ petition been filed seeking a direction to the State and Director of 'GKSF' to release the first prize to the petitioner. 4. The Director of 'GKSF' has filed a counter affidavit to the writ petition conceding the fact that the address of the petitioner has been entered in the counter foil of the Coupon. But the Director has expressed his inability to release the prize on the sole ground that the production of the original Coupon is 'inevitable'. The fact that there can be other claimants for the prize who may produce the original Coupon is also stated even though there was no other rival claimant. The press release of 'GKSF' in the various newspapers requesting the customers to retain the original Coupon with them was also highlighted. 5. It is beyond dispute that the counter foil of the Coupon drawn in the lots did contain the address of the petitioner and the number of the purchase bill. This was precisely why Ext.P3 letter was addressed by the Director of 'GKSF' congratulating the petitioner for winning the first prize of 10 Sovereigns gold. The petitioner admittedly produced the original purchase bill and the identity card issued by the Election Commission of India in proof of her address. There can therefore be no justification on the part of the Director of 'GKSF' in not releasing the prize to the petitioner on the premise that the original Coupon is not produced. This is particularly so when there is no other rival claimant hitherto to the first prize as revealed from the pleadings. I feel that the primary evidence is the production of the purchase bill by the petitioner which cannot be glossed over by the Director of 'GKSF' and other officials. 6. A Coupon of the nature involved is not akin a lottery ticket which of course is a valuable security as held in Chacko Vs. State of Kerala, 1970 KLT 358). Mr.K.V.Sohan appearing for the petitioner has very fairly brought to my notice the decision in Central Government of India and Others Vs. Krishnaji Parvetesh Kulkarni, AIR 2006 SC 1744. It is held therein as follows:- "An Indira Vikas Patra is akin to an ordinary currency note. It bears no name of the holder. Just as a lost currency note cannot be replaced, similarly the question of replacing a lost Indira Vikas Patra does not arise. Rule 7(2) makes the position clear that a certificate lost, stolen, mutilated, defaced or destroyed beyond recognition will not be replaced by any post office. Similar is the position as regards the certificate which is either lost or stolen." 7. The position here is entirely different since the counter foil of the Coupon issued by 'GKSF' does contain the name and address of the petitioner. The only endeavour is to find out the real prize winner for which the production of the purchase bill and proof of address is sufficient. Arbitrariness is writ large in the conduct of the State and the Director of 'GKSF' in not releasing the first prize to the petitioner which falls foul of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Government Pleader submits that the State would be in a quandary if another claims the prize amount on production of the Coupon. It is therefore necessary to provide sufficient safeguards at the time of release of the first prize to the petitioner by the State and Director of 'GKSF'. 8. Resultantly the writ petition is allowed in the following terms:- (i) Ext.P8 is quashed; (ii) Respondents 1 and 2 are directed to release the first prize to the petitioner pursuant to Ext.P3 within a period of six weeks from today; (iii) The release as above is subject to the condition that the petitioner executes a bond in favour of respondents 1 and 2 to indemnify the loss, if any, suffered on account of any rival claims; and (iv) There will however be no order as to costs. |
