DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION (EAST)

GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI

CONVENIENT SHOPPING CENTRE, FIRST FLOOR,

SAINI ENCLAVE, DELHI – 110 092

C.C. No.536/2021

Date of Institution: 27.12.2021

Judgment Reserved on: 31.10.2023

Judgment Passed on: 31.10.2023

QUORUM:

Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

Ms. Rashmi Bansal (Member)

Sh. Ravi Kumar (Member)

Judgment By: Sh. S.S. Malhotra (President)

JUDGMENT

1. By this judgment the Commission would dispose off the complaint of the complainant with respect to the deficiency in service by OPs in not providing the magazines despite having taken the subscription for two magazines.
2. Brief facts stated by the complainant in the complaint are, that he deposited Rs.5500/- with OP1 at Delhi Office for two magazines i.e. Alive-(monthly) and Sarita-(Quarterly) vide subscription No.D00705 and Receipt No. 16629 on 21.07.2007, but he has not received magazines since November, 2018 and due to this he requested OP1 to refund the amount on 07.12.2021 but it was not returned rather he was informed to take the refund from OP2 i.e. Managing Director, Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. He then wrote a letter to OP2 to refund the amount but OP2 also did not refund the amount and then he filed the present case, praying refund of the deposited amount with interest @10% from 2018 and also he be given the amount of the magazines for 3 years which is about of Rs.3007/- alongwith compensation of Rs.25000/-. The receipt of Rs.5500/- issued by OP1 is placed on record and there are certain terms and conditions listed on the back side of the receipt.
3. OPs were served, OP1 has filed reply within time but OP2 did not appear despite service and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 13.07.2022. OP1 in his reply has submitted that complainant has not come to court with clean hands as terms and condition printed on the reverse of the receipt has been intentionally concealed and complaint has not been properly filed as complaint against Shri Rakesh Nath OP1 is not maintainable as he is not personally liable. The complainant has alleged the deposit is made with Delhi Press Samachar Patra Pvt. Ltd. and therefore he has not mentioned proper name of the OP and it is further submitted that complainant has concealed the fact that period of up to which the complainant has received the magazine and from whom and subsequently there was a settlement recorded before NCLT Delhi and the complainant had been receiving the magazine from OP2  who was controlling the said company. The said company i.e. Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. and OP2 have their office in Jhandewalan, Delhi who are liable to supply the magazine or to refund the subscription if any, in terms of the settlement recorded before NCLT. Therefore OP1 has nothing to do once the settlement has been recorded before NCLT in between OP1 and OP2. Thereafter various clauses of settlement have been incorporated and it is submitted that all the transfer of properties, interest and money deposits for supply of magazine were transferred by OP1to OP2 which was initially collected by OP1 and as such after the order of NCLT it is the OP2 who has to refund the money to the complainant. On merit it is stated that complainant is not filing correct receipt however letter dated 07.12.2021 was received by OP1 is not disputed  and it is submitted that writing a letter by complainant to OP2 is denied for want a knowledge and it is prayed that complaint of the complainant against OP1 be dismissed.
4. Complainant has filed rejoinder thereby denying the contents of the reply of OP1 and submits that terms and conditions on the reverse of the receipt are already enclosed and it is denied that the OP1 has transferred the rights to OP2 for want of knowledge. Contents of complaint are re-affirmed reforms and contents of WS are denied. Complainant has filed his evidence and has relied upon the documents i.e. receipt alongwith back print, writing of the letter by him to OP1 demanding the money back whereas OP1 has filed evidence of affidavit of evidence of Shri Rakesh Nath in terms of reply filed by OP1. OP2 is running ex-parte.
5. The Commission has heard the arguments and perused the records. The fact that complainant deposited the amount for the magazines with OP1 who had been sending the magazine to the complainant up to 2018 & another fact that is at present the complainant is not receiving these magazines dispite writing letter to OP1 and he has filed the present complaint caseis admitted. OP1 also admits of having received the deposits but has argued that there was some dispute in between OP1 and OP2 where after some settlement was arrived before the NCLT Delhi whereby the magazines now have to be supplied by OP2 or in any case amount is to be refunded by OP2 after fulfilling their respective commitments. Counsel for OP2 was present today and has argued, (although OP2 is running ex-parte) that some part of the obligation which were to be fulfilled by OP1 by transferring certain properties to OP2 have not been fulfilled even up today by OP1 and therefore OP1, so far has not complied with the terms and condition of settlement and till the time those settlements are not fully complied with, OP2 would not be in position to refund the amount to the complainant.
6. The Commission is of the opinion that complainant had no privity of contract with OP2 and if OP1 had certain disputes with OP2 which have been resolved then that agreement has to be complied with provided both OP1 and OP2 fulfil their part of obligations. But in all this process, the complainant’s interest is only to get the magazines and same cannot be overlooked. Therefore non providing the magazine or in the alternative non refunding the amount of Rs.5500/- by OP1 to the complainant amounts to deficiency in service by OP1.

The Commission therefore orders that OP1 shall refund amount of Rs.5500/- with interest @6% per annum to the complainant from the date of filing the complaint till actual payment and shall also pay compensation of Rs.3000/- to the complainant.

This order be complied within 30 days from the receving the same and in case the OP1 does not pay the amount within 30 days, the rate of interest would be 9% per annum from the date of filing the case upto the date of actural payment on the entire amount including of compensation.

File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced on the 31^st day of October, 2023.

                 Delhi