CC Filed on 09.03.2010<br /> Disposed on 14.07.2010<br /> <br /> BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOLAR.<br /> <br /> Dated: 14th day of July 2010<br /> <br /> PRESENT:<br /> Sri. G.V.HEGDE, President.<br /> <br /> Sri. T.NAGARAJA, Member.<br /> Smt. K.G.SHANTALA, Member.<br /> ---<br /> <br /> Consumer Complaint No. 25/2010<br /> <br /> Between:<br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Raghunatha Babu,<br /> Prop: M/s. Gayathri ADS,<br /> Creative Auto Ads, <br /> Pole-Ads and out doors,<br /> Office at No. M-6,<br /> Industrial Area, <br /> Near Clock-Tower,<br /> Kolar – 563 101.<br /> <br /> <br /> (By Advocate Sri. Sama Rangappa & others) <br /> <br /> <br /> V/S<br /> <br /> <br /> 1. Mr. Pushah Kumar,<br /> The Senior Manager (Sales)<br /> Times Innovative Media Ltd.,<br /> Office at 6th and 7th floor,<br /> Fathima Aktar Court,<br /> New No. 453,<br /> Anna Salai,<br /> Teynampet,<br /> Chennai – 600 018.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. Sri. Balachandra Reddy,<br /> Asst. Manager – Sales,<br /> Times Innovative Media Ltd., <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Complainant<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> #39/2, 3rd Floor, <br /> Sagar Building,<br /> Bannerghatta Main Road,<br /> Bangalore – 560 029.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> ….Opposite Parties<br /> <br /> ORDERS<br /> <br /> This is a complaint filed under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying for a direction against the opposite parties to pay Rs.1,10,200/- towards advertisement charges with compensation of Rs.40,000/- with costs and interest, etc., <br /> <br /> 2. The material facts of complainant’s case may be stated as follows:<br /> That the complainant carries on the business of Advertisement Agency and he does Creative Auto Ads, Pole Ads & Out Doors. That the OPs are the Senior Manager(sales) and Asst. Manager (sales) respectively of Times Innovative Media Ltd., a company which undertakes and receives orders from third parties to publish advertisements to promote their products. The OPs in turn entrust that advertisement work to advertising agencies including the complainant. The Times Innovative Media Ltd., had taken an order for publishing certain advertisements relating to M/s. Hatsun Agro Limited, Arogya Milk products. <br /> <br /> 3. It is alleged that OP.2 had in turn entrusted the work of advertisement relating to M/s. Hatsun Agro Limited to complainant. Further it is alleged that the terms of contract were settled and the complainant was required to print and mount flex design boards relating to products of M/s. Hatsun Agro Limited in various places in North Karnataka as instructed by OPs. <br /> <br /> 4. As per the agreement the complainant has printed the flex design boards and mounted the same in places assigned by the OPs relating to the advertisement of M/s. Hatsun Agro Limited. It is alleged that after completion of his part of contract the complainant raised bills towards the charges at the agreed rate which comes to Rs.1,10,200/-. Further it is alleged that the OPs did not pay the amount inspite of repeated requests and also by issue of legal notice. Hence the complainant filed the present complaint on 09.03.2010. <br /> <br /> 5. OP.2 was served with notice sent by this Forum but he remained absent. Acknowledgement of service of notice on OP.1 which was sent through RPAD, is not returned for some reason. It is presumed that the notice was served on OP.1. OP.1 also remained absent. Version is not filed by OPs. <br /> <br /> 6. The complainant filed affidavit and documents in support of his case. We heard the arguments of the Learned Counsel for complainant.<br /> <br /> 7. The Learned Counsel for complainant was asked to satisfy the Forum, whether the complainant would become a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of the definition of sec - 2 (1) (d) of the C.P. Act 1986. The Learned Counsel relied upon the decision reported in Consumer Protection Reporter III-1993(1) between Kalyan Kr. Dey V/s. Srite Narayan Chowdhury at page 420. In this decision the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal had stated the principle regarding deficiency in service in case of contract as follows: - “If somebody does not perform his part of the contract it amounts to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act”. The Learned Counsel for complainant submitted that the complainant had performed his part of the contract but the OPs failed to perform their part of the contract. Therefore he submitted that there is deficiency in service by OPs. <br /> <br /> 8. Further the Learned Counsel for complainant relied upon the unreported decision dated 07.07.2009 in Revision Petition No. 2627 of 2005 (which was a revision preferred against the order dated 13.09.2005 in Appeal No. 1406/2005 of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore) between Ambal Agency Advertising Agency V/s. Raghunath Babu. Further he submitted that the facts in the Revision Petition No.2627/2005 are exactly similar and in that case the District Consumer Forum and the State Commission had allowed the claim of complainant in that case against which Ambala Advertising Agency had preferred revision and ultimately that Revision Petition was dismissed. The said unreported decision is available in C.C. No. 23/2005 on the file of this Forum. The submission of the Learned Counsel for complainant found to be correct. In view of the above precedents we hold that this Forum has jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint and that the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Act. <br /> <br /> 9. So far as the merit of the claim for recovery of the amount we have to accept the case of complainant as there is no contradictory evidence. The email dated 13.10.2009 sent by OP.2 to complainant states the location of advertisements and the charges for it at a particular rate apart from printing and mounting charges. The complainant has raised the bills dated 03.11.2009 totally for Rs.1,10,200/-. The OPs must have received the said bills/invoices sent by complainant. The complainant had also issued legal notice prior to filing of the complaint. The legal notice was served on OP.2, but no reply was received as stated by complainant. Therefore we have to allow the claim for Rs.1,10,200/- towards the advertisement charges payable to complainant. <br /> <br /> 10. We think interest at the rate of 8% p.a. from 01.12.2009 may be awarded on Rs.1,10,200/- till the date of payment. As interest is awarded separate compensation need not be allowed. Accordingly we pass the following:<br /> <br /> O R D E R<br /> <br /> The complaint is allowed with costs of Rs.1,000/-. OP.1 and 2 are directed to pay Rs.1,10,200/- (rupees one lakh ten thousand & two hundred only) together with interest at the rate of 8% p.a. on the said amount from 01.12.2009 to the date of payment. The OP.1 and 2 shall pay the amount within 4 weeks from the date of this order. <br /> <br /> Dictated to the Stenographer, corrected and pronounced in open Forum this the 14th day of July 2010.<br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br />