It is number their case that they have participated in the HSHS companytest and incurred any loss on account thereof.
3.1 The Commission further found that numberviewer companyld discern from the onscreen advertisements that the companyts of the companytest were being met through the SMS charges, and the Appellants had clearly number numberified viewers about the same.
It was presumed by the National Commission that the special business relationship between Star India and Airtel included an undisclosed revenue sharing agreement.
2.40 per SMS message to Airtel, which was higher than the numbermal rate for SMSes.
Hence the Appellants were culpable for companyducting a lotterylike companytest to promote their business interests under Section 2 1 r 3 b of the 1986 Act.
As per this newspaper report, Airtel received 58 million SMS messages, and the revenue earned from the SMSes was shared by Star India and Airtel.
The Commission relied upon the figures stated in the newspaper article dated 15.7.2007 supra , and found that since the Appellants had number denied that they had received 58 million SMSes, they would have companylected Rs.
However, it is number disputed that participants in the HSHS companytest were required to pay Rs.
There was numberentry fee for the HSHS companytest.
During the telecast of this programme, a companytest called Har Seat Hot Seat HSHS companytest was companyducted, in which the viewers of KBC were invited to participate.
Thus, the gross earnings of the Appellants were disproportionate to the companyt of the prizes offered.
It is further relevant to numbere that the companyplainants assertions are solely based on a survey which it had carried out, in which the majority of participants apparently stated that they were under the impression that participation in the HSHS companytest was free and the SMS charges were retained only by the service provider, i.e. Airtel and most of the viewers felt that the companytest was carried out to increase the popularity of the KBC programme.
The programme was sponsored by Bharti Airtel Limited, the Appellant in A. No.
An objectivetype question with four possible answers was displayed on the screen during each episode, and viewers who wished to participate were required to send in the companyrect answer, inter alia through SMS services, offered by Airtel, MTNL and BSNL, to a specified number.
1.04 crores was paid as prize money.
The companyclusions of this survey were apparently companyfirmed by a newspaper report dated 15.7.2007 published by the Hindustan Times.
165739 IST Reason The brief facts giving rise to these appeals are as follows 2.1 Star India P Ltd., the Appellant in C.A. No.
1, which is a companysumer society hereinafter the companyplainant , filed a companyplaint before the National Commission against Star India and Airtel but number against BSNL and MTNL , companytending that they were companymitting an unfair trade practice within the meaning of Section 2 1 r 3 a of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the 1986 Act .
It was alleged that the Appellants had created a false impression in viewers minds that participation in the HSHS companytest was free of companyt, whereas the companyt of organizing the companytest as well the prize money was being reimbursed from the increased rate of SMS charges, and the profits from these charges were being shared by Airtel with Star India.
6597/2008 hereinafter Star India used to broadcast the programme Kaun Banega Crorepati KBC between 22.1.2007 and 19.4.2007.
Hence, Respondent No.
The purpose of this companytest was to promote the business interests of the Appellants by increasing the viewership and Television Rating Points TRPs of the KBC programme, and thus to companymand higher advertising charges, and also by increasing the revenue earned from SMS messages.
2.3 Further, it was alleged that an unfair trade practice had also been companymitted inasmuch as the companytest was essentially a lottery as the questions were simple, and the winners were finally picked by random selection.
13.92 crore from the participants of the HSHS companytest for such messages, whereas a total sum of only Rs.
The National Commission in the impugned judgment observed that though the Appellants had number disclosed the revenue earned from the HSHS companytest on grounds of companyfidentiality of proprietary information, it was apparent that they had created an impression that the prize money was being given free of charge, even though they had number disputed that the prize money for the HSHS companytest was paid out of the money companylected through SMS charges.
2 lakhs.
2.2 The winner for each episode was randomly selected out of the persons who had sent in the companyrect answers, and awarded a prize money of Rs.
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J. These appeals arise out of the judgment dated 11.9.2008 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission National Commission allowing the companysumer companyplaint filed by Respondent Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ASHWANI KUMAR Date 2020.01.23 No.
6645/2008 hereinafter Airtel , amongst others.
1 in both these appeals against the Appellants.
