Gillette India, which markets dry cells/batteries under the brand name GEEP-505, has sought the Supreme Court’s intervention in deciding whether consumers participating in sales promotion schemes accompanying any product are consumers under the definition of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
A Bench, headed by Justice AK Ganguly, has issued notice to various complainants, including Harish Kumar, on the issue. It also stayed the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissions’s order that held Gillette India guilty of unfair trade practices and asked it pay R1lakh with costs.
Gillette said the purchaser had paid for the product only and no defect had ever been raised. The probability of winning a prize under the scheme was an additional attraction attached to the sale of the product and this does not form an intrinsic part of the contract for which payment had been made by Kumar.
Gillette India launched a sales promotion scheme titled Geep Khul Jaye Kismath in 2000. It released a predetermined number of batteries having numbers inscribed with secret markings under plastic seals in the market.
While the company disbursed cash prizes up to R10 lakh to a number of successful claimants, it rejected certain claims, including that of Kumar. Gillette claimed the battery cap didn?t have secret markings and didn?t conform to the mould specifications of prize winning caps.
