He wins $2 million in the lottery, his colleagues claim part of it

A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has ruled in favor of Surrey trucker Mandeep Singh Maan, who was sued by four colleagues claiming they were entitled to a share of his $2 million winnings. lottery.

Winning the lottery should be a happy event. In this case, unfortunately, it ruined relationshipsdeclared judge Liliane Bantourakis.

The court decision describes how colleagues at a road transport company purchased lottery tickets in groups at least between 2021 and 2022.

Mandeep Singh Maan won the BC/49 jackpot on August 15, 2022.

His colleagues cried foul after learning of his victory several days later, when a photo of Mr. Maan holding a check was posted online.

They claimed he used pooled funds or was forced to buy tickets for the group, but the court ruled the winning ticket was bought with Mr Maan’s personal money.

A washing machine won in India

Mandeep Singh Maan told the court he became interested in the lottery several years ago when he won a washing machine in India. He said he spends about $400 a month on tickets.

His colleagues claimed they regularly pooled funds to buy lottery tickets through a group WhatsAppbut Mr. Maan called this arrangement irregular.

The judge found the case hinged on the credibility of both parties, noting that there was no written agreement and that only 16 photos of group purchases were shared in the conversation over a 14-month period.

Inconsistent evidence, according to the judge

The judge relied on records from the British Columbia Lottery Corporation (BCLC) which show a total of $12 was spent at a gas station Chevron has Langley, the day Mr. Maan won the jackpot.

The court found that this amount did not correspond to a group purchase, because the photos in the group WhatsApp showed higher amounts.

The judge also found that allegations by one of the complainants, that he had given money to Mr Maan to buy the tickets a few days earlier, were inconsistent and contained discrepancies.

The fact that the parties purchased lottery tickets together, even if they did so quite frequently, is not enough to relieve the plaintiffs of having to prove […] that they entered into a binding oral agreement with the defendant which would have given them a right to the winning ticketconcludes the decision.

With information from Akshay Kulkarni