A.K.ANNAMALAI, J. - (1.) F.A.No. 583/2008 The 3rd opposite party is the appellant. F.A.No. 841/2010 Opposite parties 1 and 2 are the appellants. The complainant purchased VIM High power dish wash bar from 3rd opposite party for Rs.30/-. The product was covered by a special offer VIM Bar Banjaye Bar offer by the 1st opposite party carrying offer of lucky gift of Ford Ikon car and other attractive items including gold coins and watches. The VIM Bar purchased by the complainant contained price coupon No.1807073 for the bumper prize of Ford Ikon car. The complainant produced the bumper prize wrapper to the 3rd opposite party to arrange for the receipt of the bumper prize from the 1st opposite party, on 27.9.2001 to enable him to complete the process and get the prized car to the complainant and the 3rd opposite party sent a receipt to the complainant on 1.10.2001 as if the complainant agreed to sell the said car for Rs.1,50,000/- to the 3rd opposite party, when there was no such agreement was made. The 3rd opposite party committed fraud upon the complaint and his wife and fraudulently entered his name and address as the retailer and suspecting the fowl play complainant sent a telegram on 4.10.2001 to the 1st opposite party and notice also on 6.10.2001 as there was no response the complainant filed the complaint claiming for delivery of the bumper prize Ford Ikon car and other deemed fit reliefs. 2.The opposite parties 1 and 2 denied the allegations of the complainant stating that the complainant?s winning of the gift coupon for the car and the transactions with the 3rd opposite party are not known to the 1st and 2nd opposite parties and they are not responsible for the actions of the 3rd opposite party. The 1st opposite party?s consumer scheme on their product VIM dish wash bar was run across the country and the winners of the lucky prize duly honoured with the prizes they have won in the function and one person who won the bumper prize was from Chennai and he was honoured by handing over the Ford Ikon Car to the lucky winner. Hence the complaint has to be dismissed. 3. The 3rd opposite party contended that on winning the bumper prize car the complainant offered to sell the said car to the 3rd opposite party for Rs.1,50,000/- and thereby the 3rd opposite party agreed to purchase the same and on enquiry with the 1st opposite party sales representative that no prize was declared with regard to the coupon with the complainant and the same was informed to the complainant who had received back the coupon from the 3rd opposite party. The 3rd opposite party has not received any gift of the car or any other prize under the alleged coupon or any other coupon from opposite parties 1 and 2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.4. On the basis of both sides materials and after an enquiry the District Forum allowed the complaint by directing the opposite parties jointly and severally to deliver the bumper prize car under the gift scheme. 5. Aggrieved by the order of the District Forum, the opposite parties 1 and 2 and the 3rd opposite party have come forward with two separate appeals in F.A.No.841/2010 andF.A.No.583/2008 respectively. In both the appeals they have contended that the District Forum erroneously allowed the complaint without going in to the contention of the respective opposite parties and the order to be set aside. 6. While considering the opposite parties and as well as the complainant?s side arguments, averments and contentions it is seen that the complainant have purchased VIM Bar under gift scheme and the complainant said to have got the gift coupon for first prize of Ford Ikon car in coupon No.1807073. It is the case of the complainant that the coupon was handed over for getting delivery of the gift from the 1st opposite party by processing the coupon to reach the 1st opposite party and the 3rd opposite party committed fraud on the complainant by making use of the coupon for himself to avail the prize of the car by putting the details of his address and affixed stamp as a dealer for the same on the coupon. The opposite parties 1 and 2 contended they have not received the coupon from the 3rd opposite party and really the person who had won the car as per scheme was honoured with the same gift. To prove the same they have filed a CMP before the District Forum in CMP No.179/2002 seeking exhibition of VCD to prove prize distribution function and the same was subsequently dismissed. The District Forum observed that the opposite parties 1 and 2 have not disclosed the name of the person and coupon number for the winning of the prize and who was honoured in this regard. When the complainant has no direct approach with the opposite parties 1 and 2 and has not taken steps to send the coupon as per terms and conditions as exhibited, in Exhibit A1 he cannot claim any deficiency of service or unfair trade practice against the opposite parties 1 and 2. 7. On perusal of exhibits A1 it is the advertisement for the purchase of 200 grm VIM pack in which it is stated collection of wrappers with the letter ?V? ?I? ?M? to form the word VIM and requested retailer to exchange 3 wrappers for a 200 gram free VIM bar and further if the prize if any one exchange the coupon and to claim the discount on the next purchase and also regarding the bumper prize coupon it stated as follows and it could be cut along with the dotted line and mailed the top part by including name and address to VIM bar Banjaye car offer c/o. Lintas Direct, Post Box No.16362, Mumbai 400 013 and Make sure it reaches us on or before 30.09.2001. We will send you the gift within 6 weeks on receiving the mail. According to this the top part of the dotted line coupon to be sent directly containing the name and address of the winner to the address given by mail to reach on or before 13.09.2001. But the complainant handed over the wrapper to the 3rd opposite party and subsequently he came to know that instead of mentioning complainant?s name and his address the 3rd opposite party has affixed his address as a retailer and sent it and apprehending the fowl play and fraud committed by the 3rd opposite party, the complainant caused to send a telegram dated 4.10.2001 as per Exhibit A6. From those details it is clear that the coupon was not sent in the name of complainant and it was not proved that it reached the opposite parties 1 and 2 on or before 30.09.01 as per Exhibit A1 and thereby only after that date on 4.10.2001 alone the telegram was sent by which no purpose to be served and as per the condition it must be proved that the coupon has reached the opposite parties 1 and 2 before 30.09.2001 which was not proved in this case. 8. In those circumstances the complainant cannot claim any relief against the opposite parties 1 and 2 as the conditions were not said to have been proved by the complainant. In the case of 3rd opposite party?s role he has stated that the complainant and his wife agreed to sell the prized car for Rs.1,50,000/- for which he had issued a receipt and this was also stated by the complainant, but denied that no such letter was given by them. In those circumstances even though it is clear from the materials that the 3rd opposite party played fraud upon the complainant in this regard as far as the claim against 3rd opposite party by the complainant in this regard cannot be entertained by the consumer forum. Since the complainant has not produced anything to prove that he was the consumer and the 3rd opposite party as service provider to sell the product as the complainant failed to file any receipt for the purchase of VIM bar from the 3rd opposite party, even though the 3rd opposite party admitted that he had produced the wrapper for making arrangements to get the car, it is also contended by the 3rd opposite party that he had not received any prize for the alleged coupon No.1807073 or for any other coupon from the opposite parties 1 and 2 and in those circumstances he cannot be directed to hand over the prized car to the complainant which fact cannot be brushed aside as opposite parties 1 and 2 have admitted that the car was delivered to some other person who has own the car was honoured by delivering the car to him. In those circumstances the District Forum order to directing the 3rd opposite party to hand over the car and along with opposite parties 1 and 2 cannot be complied with. Further the complainant failed to prove that he is the consumer under the Consumer Protection Act to claim the reliefs against the opposite parties and he has chosen the wrong Forum to settle their case in this regard. Even though apparently it is seen that the 3rd opposite party played fraud upon the complainant failed to prove the same against the opposite parties including the 3rd opposite party no relief could be given by the Consumer Forum and the District Forum without considering those aspects in detail allowed the complaint erroneously, which we feel in our view that it is to be set aside by allowing both the appeals on the same ground. 9. In the result, these appeals are allowed by setting aside the order of the District Forum, Chennai (North) in C.C.No.23/2002 dated 16.06.2008 and the complaint is dismissed. However the complainant is advised to approach necessary legal Forum to proceed against the 3rd opposite party, if so desired for the fraudulent act committed by him. No order as to costs in these appeals. 10. The Registry is directed to hand over the Fixed Deposit Receipt made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellants, duly discharged.;