Coca-Cola's Scheme Of Awarding Honda City For Lucky Bottles Was Genuine Marketing Strategy, Aggrieved Consumer Eligible For Compensation: NCDRC

Brief Facts:

Coca-Cola introduced a prize scheme in September 1998 by offering various prices for bottles having crowns with a yellow band. The prices included 5 Honda City cars. The scheme also had several conditions. The Complainant bought one such bottle which entitled him to one such car as the printed liner on his bottle matched the winning criteria as per Condition 6 of the scheme. The Complainant sent the liner via postal mail to Coca-Cola. Despite Condition 9 stipulating that entries must be submitted before 28.10.1998 by ordinary post, the Complainant alleged that entries via other postal means were accepted by Coca-Cola through its appointed agency, M/s Bansal & Co., Chartered Accountants.

After receiving no clear response, the Complainant issued a legal notice. The legal notice was not replied to either. Feeling aggrieved, the Complainant filed a consumer complaint in the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (“State Commission”). The State Commission held that Coca-Cola engaged in unfair trade practices as the prices were only 10-15 for crores of sold bottles. This was considered to deceive people by prompting them to buy Coca-Cola even if they didn't consume it normally. The State Commission directed Coca-Cola to deposit Rs. 1 Lakh in the State Consumer Welfare Fund (Legal Aid) and pay Rs. 25,000/- as compensation to the Complainant.

The Complainant filed a review petition before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (“NCDRC”) for enhancement of compensation and seeking a direction for ordering Coca-Cola to give a Honda City car to the Complainant.

Observations of the NCDRC:

The NCDRC observed that the State Commission found that Coca-Cola's promotional scheme constituted an unfair trade practice, as it lured customers with promises of prizes but awarded them to only a few individuals. The State Commission awarded compensation to the Complainant based on this finding.

The NCDRC further noted that the Delhi High Court, in Writ Petition (Civil) 6771/2207, had already declared Coca-Cola's scheme as genuine. Therefore, its illegality was not a question anymore. The only question which remained was whether the Complainant was a 'consumer' within the Consumer Protection Act. It was held that the Complainant was indeed a consumer and was entitled to the protection given by the Consumer Protection Act.

Consequently, the NCDRC set aside the State Commission's order and concluded that the scheme was not fraudulent but a legitimate marketing strategy by Coca-Cola. However, recognizing the Complainant's legitimate pursuit of the prize and the anxiety caused by not receiving it, the NCDRC directed Coca-Cola to pay the Complainant litigation costs of Rs. 25,000/-.

Case Title: Z. Ahmed vs M/s. Coca Cola India

Case No.: Appeal No. 731 of 2007

Advocate for the Complainant: Mr PS Rana

Advocates for the Respondent: Mr Siddharth Banthia and Mr Ishan Narain