Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 442 (UTT)

VANITY BOOKS v. UNION OF INDIA

2013-07-05

B.C.Kandpal, C.C.Pant

body2013
ORDER Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President : This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 23.07.2008 passed by the District Forum, Haridwar in consumer complaint No. 191 of 2006. By the order impugned, the District Forum has allowed the consumer complaint and directed the appellants – opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs. 75,000/- to the respondent – complainant together with interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing of the consumer complaint till payment and Rs. 2,000/- towards litigation expenses. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as mentioned in the consumer complaint, are that the complainant wanted to publish a book to be known as “Bengal Sappers Coffee Table Book” in order to celebrate the Bicentenary of the existence of the “Bengal Sappers” and for that, the opposite party No. 1 through letter dated 14.08.2001 submitted the proposal to the complainant for publishing 1000 copies of the said book for sum of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The said proposal was accepted by the complainant through letter dated 25.08.2001 with certain modifications and the order was placed with the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 accepted the draft of Rs. 75,000/-. The opposite parties assured the complainant to get the publication work completed before the function and it was also decided that the Memorandum of Agreement will be executed later on. All the desired information was supplied by the complainant to the opposite parties, but inspite of that, the work was done by the opposite parties at a slow speed. The complainant lodged several complaints with the opposite parties. The function was to be held in the month of November, 2003, but the opposite parties did not complete the publication work in time, on account of which the complainant could not distribute the said Table Book in the function. The complainant sent a notice dated 02.09.2004 to the opposite parties, calling upon them to refund the amount of Rs. 75,000/- with interest and to return the reference books and CD’s supplied to them for the project, but to no avail. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. 75,000/- with interest and to return the reference books and CD’s supplied to them for the project, but to no avail. Thereafter, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, the complainant filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, Haridwar. 3. The appellants – opposite parties filed written statement before the District Forum and pleaded that the complainant is not a consumer; that the learned Forum has no territorial jurisdiction in the matter; that there were laches on the part of the complainant in supplying the information and there was no fault on the part of the opposite parties and that there is no deficiency in the services of the opposite parties. 4. The District Forum, on an appreciation of the material on record, allowed the consumer complaint vide impugned order dated 23.07.2008 in the above terms. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have filed this appeal. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record. 6. That so far as the territorial jurisdiction of the District Forum, Haridwar in the matter under reference is concerned, the offer for publication of the books was made by the opposite parties at Roorkee and the same was accepted by the complainant at Roorkee and the order was also placed at Roorkee. The demand draft of Rs. 75,000/- was also prepared by State Bank of India, Roorkee. The books were to be distributed in the function to be held at Roorkee. Therefore, it can not be said that the District Forum at Haridwar had no territorial jurisdiction in the matter and it erred in entertaining the consumer complaint and deciding it on merit. Merely because the opposite parties are situated at Delhi, it can not be said that only the Delhi Forum has jurisdiction in the matter and the plea to that effect taken by the opposite parties, was rightly turned down by the District Forum. From above, it is also clear that part cause of action for filing the consumer complaint has arisen in favour of the complainant at Roorkee, which falls within the vicinity of District Haridwar and, therefore, the District Forum, Haridwar had territorial jurisdiction in the matter. 7. That so far as the plea taken by the appellants that the complainant is not a consumer is concerned, we do not find any force in the said plea. 7. That so far as the plea taken by the appellants that the complainant is not a consumer is concerned, we do not find any force in the said plea. The reason being that the complainant had accepted the offer tendered by the opposite parties and had paid the earnest amount. The books were to be distributed in the function and the same were not to be sold for generating profit or otherwise. Even otherwise, the complainant has paid the amount and it was entitled to get the books published as per the offer and acceptance made between the parties and there was no commercial purpose involved in the matter. Learned counsel for the appellants cited a decision of State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamilnadu, Chennai in the case of Sri Ganesh Plywood Agencies Vs. Arasu Autos; 1998 (3) CPR 99 . The said case does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case, for the reason that in the said case, the goods were purchased for decorating the office premises of the complainant and it was held that the same was for commercial purpose. In the instant case, as is stated above, the books were to be distributed in the function organized to celebrate the Bicentenary of the existence of the “Bengal Sappers” and not for generating profit. Even otherwise, the books were not to be purchased by the complainant for resale. 8. It was also argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Commandant, Bengal Engineer Group & Centre had no authority to file the consumer complaint on behalf of Union of India, who is the complainant in the present case. We also do not find any force in this argument, because there is nothing on record to show that the Commandant who had signed the consumer complaint on behalf of the Union of India, was not in the services of the Armed Forces of the Union of India and was not authorised or competent to file the consumer complaint on behalf of Union of India. Even otherwise, the offer for publication of the books was tendered by the opposite parties to the Centre Commandant, Bengal Engineering Group & Centre, Roorkee, as would be evident from the letter dated 14.08.2001 and the same was accepted by the Commandant through letter dated 25.08.2001. 9. Even otherwise, the offer for publication of the books was tendered by the opposite parties to the Centre Commandant, Bengal Engineering Group & Centre, Roorkee, as would be evident from the letter dated 14.08.2001 and the same was accepted by the Commandant through letter dated 25.08.2001. 9. That so far as the merit of the case is concerned, the appellants have stated that the books could not be published in time on the ground that there were laches on the part of the complainant and the complainant did not supply the desired information and material in time. This plea has also got no force. As is stated above, the function was to be held in the month of November, 2003. In the letter dated 12.05.2004 written by the appellants to the complainant, they have stated that the required material has not been sent to them. The offer of the appellants was accepted by the complainant on 25.08.2001 and the demand draft for sum of Rs. 75,000/- was tendered on 28.08.2001. If the complainant did not supply the required information/material to the appellants for publication of the book, the appellants should have written letter to the complainant for supplying the desired information /material. When the function had already taken place in the month of November, 2003, the appellants suddenly wake up on 12.05.2004 and stated that the required material has not been sent to them. The appellants have nowhere stated or made it clear as to why they kept silent for such a long period and did not take any action in the matter if the required information was not supplied to them. Thus, there is clear deficiency in service on the part of the appellants. 10. The District Forum has considered all the aspects of the matter and has passed a reasoned order, which does not call for any interference. The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 11. For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.