Smt. Vibha Mehta And Anr. vs Society For The National ...
2002 Latest Caselaw 499 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. The present suit is filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant for recovery of an amount of Rs. 5,70,000 along with pendente lite and future interest and costs.

2. It is the case of the plaintiffs in the plaint that defendant herein organized a lottery with the name and title of National Sports Raffle. During the course of the same, the defendant issued tickets for general public for its draw which was to be held on 25.7.1984 for the denomination of Rs. 1/-. The defendant declared 20 first prizes of Rs. 5,00,000/- each, 100 second prizes of Rs. 50,000/- each, 100 third prizes of Rs. 10,000/- each and 3,15,000 other prizes. The plaintiffs purchased a ticket of the said lottery bearing No. A-0042583. The draw, which was to be held on 25.7.1984 was postponed and was actually held on 29.9.1984. The ticket No. A-0042583 purchased by the plaintiffs was declared to have won one of the cash prizes of Rs. 5,00,000/-. The plaintiffs, in due course, claimed the prize money through New Bank of India, L-Block, Connaught Place and when the said bank presented the ticket to the defendant, the defendant accepted the ticket and kept the same in its custody and possession and that when after expiry of a long period no intimation was received by the plaintiffs, the plaintiff No. 1 wrote a letter dt.19.1.1985 requesting the defendant to pay the aforesaid prize money to the plaintiffs. The defendant by its letter dt.22.2.1985 alleged that the ticket submitted by the plaintiffs was torn, mutilated and tempered with and, therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs for the prize money was not maintainable. Thereafter, the plaintiffs sent a legal notice to the defendant on 19.3.1985 and even in spite of receipt of the same as no amount was paid, the present suit was instituted by the plaintiffs.

3. The defendant entered appearance and filed its written statement contending, inter alia, that the aforesaid lottery ticket purchased by the plaintiffs was mutilated and was not a genuine ticket and, therefore, no amount could be paid to the said plaintiffs.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed, on 7.8.1986:-

1. Whether the lottery ticket produced by the plaintiff is not actual/original/real or genuine ticket issued by the defendant? OPD

2. Relief?

5. As the plaintiffs produced the lottery ticket to the defendant for making the payment in terms of the contract, which was repudiated by the defendant, therefore, the onus of proving the aforesaid issue was naturally on the defendant. The lottery ticket was produced in evidence and the same was proved as EX.DW-1. Plaintiff No. 2 examined himself whereas on behalf of the defendant two witnesses were examined. Plaintiff No. 2 in his deposition stated that he had purchased the lottery ticket from Cannaught Place. He has further stated that on reading the newspaper, he came to learn that his ticket had won the prize. He has also stated that he had deposited the said ticket with his bank, through whom the prize money was claimed. He has also proved Ex.P-2, which is reply to the legal demand notice sent by the plaintiffs. He has also stated that the original lottery ticket, when it was submitted to the defendant, was in perfect condition and the same was quite genuine. Since genuineness of the said ticket was contested by the defendant, it was incumbent on the defendant to prove that the said lottery ticket was not genuine. A suggestion was given to the plaintiff No. 2 to the effect that when the said ticket was delivered to the New Bank of India, the same was in torn condition and that the said lottery ticket is not a genuine ticket. The said suggestion was denied by the plaintiff No. 2.

6. The aforesaid plea was raised by the defendant on the basis of a report given by their agent M/s. A & A. Enterprises. It transpires from the record that it was only when the claim was made by the plaintiffs to the defendant by letter dt.19.1.1985 that the defendant in reply to the said letter intimated to the plaintiffs that the ticket in question was torn/mutilated, as is indicated in its reply dt.22.2.1985, which is proved as Ex.P-2. The ticket was submitted to the defendant about three months prior to the aforesaid date. However, in spite of submission of the said ticket, no intimation was sent to the plaintiffs by the defendant that the ticket was not genuine. It was only stated in the deposition that the claim was disallowed as the ticket in question was oily/tornished/mutilated. According to the printers, the aforesaid lottery ticket was mutilated and hence the prize could not be given.

7. I have examined the lottery ticket and found that although the same is oily and torn at places but the number appearing on the ticket is still clear and distinct. If the defendant was of the opinion that the same is not a genuine ticket, the genuineness or otherwise of the same could have been verified and examined through an expert on the subject. No such steps were taken by the defendant and, therefore, the claim of the plaintiffs could not have been rejected by the defendant on the ground that no payment could be made and the claim was liable to be disallowed as because the ticket was oily, tornished and mutilated. If the number on the ticket is distinct and clear and when there is no evidence on record to prove that the said ticket was not genuine, the defendant could not have rejected the claim of the plaintiffs. It is also proved on evidence that no other claim was received by the defendant as against the aforesaid claim and the prize money against the said ticket is not paid till date. The aforesaid action, on the part of the defendant, in rejecting the claim of the plaintiffs is illegal and void. Accordingly, a decree is passed in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 5,70,000/- along with costs of the suit. In addition, the plaintiffs shall also be entitled to payment of interest at the rate of [email protected] p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till payment.