DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi-110016.
Case No.590/2012
Sh. Harish Chander Ahuja
S/o late Sh. Bodh Raj
R/o B-56, 1st Floor,
Asha Park, Near Fateh Nagar,
New Delhi-110018 ….Complainant
Versus
Salvia Films
Through its Manager
H-129, Basement, Lajpat Nagar-I,
New Delhi-110024 …Opposite Party
Date of Institution : 06.11.12 Date of Order : 21.01.16
Coram:
Sh. N.K. Goel, President
Ms. Naina Bakshi, Member
O R D E R
The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that after retirement he was in search of a job and was also interested in acting. He saw a advertisement in the newspaper that the OP is doing work for T.V. and film work and having its office at Lajpat Nagar. He contacted the OP. After taking audition by the OP, he was found to be fit for acting in T.V. serial. He deposited Rs.1,000/- as registration fee on 24.07.2010. The OP told him that they are going to start T.V. serial namely, “Maa Ka Anchal” and they want his portfolio and demanded Rs.21,000/- for making portfolio which he deposited on 31.07.2010. The OP in their visiting card gave him a receipt of Rs.21,000/-. After passing one month, he enquired from the OP as to when the T.V. serial will start. The OP informed him that it will take about one or two months to start the T.V. serial. Ultimately, two years passed. He had visited the office of OP several times but no response. He sent a letter dated 05.10.12 to the OP through sped post but no reply has been received from OP. Hence, there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OP. The Complainant has prayed for issuing directions to the OP to pay Rs.22,000/- alongwith 18% interest from 31.7.2010 and Rs.50,000/- as compensation for causing him mental agony and harassment.
No one appeared on behalf of the OP to contest the claim of the Complainant and, hence, OP has been proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.07.13 passed by our Predecessors.
Affidavit in exparte evidence and written arguments have been filed by the Complainant. We have heard the Complainant and have also gone through the file very carefully.
Complainant has placed on record a copy of receipt dated 24.07.10 for Rs.1,000/- (copy Ex.CW-1/1) and copy of receipt dated 31.07.10 of Rs. 21,000/- on visiting card of the OP (Ex.CW-1/2) issued by the OPs. The Complainant vide letter dated 05.10.12 (Ex.CW-1/3) requested the OP to return the money.
In receipt for Rs. 1000/- it is mentioned, “This amount is for Consultancy only and does not give any guarantee of any shooting, production, work etc”. Thus, it was not a registration fee. In copy Ex. CW1/2, the purpose for which the amount of Rs. 21,000/- had been taken is not written. According to the complainant himself, the said amount of Rs. 21,000/- had been taken from him for making his portfolio. Thus, this amount had also not been taken by the OP for providing any service or selling any good for consideration to him. Therefore, in our considered opinion, complainant is not a “consumer”.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and dismiss it with no order as to costs.
Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on 21.01.16
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
Case No. 590/12
21.1.2016
Present – None.
Vide our separate order of even date pronounced, the complaint is dismissed. Let the file be consigned to record room.
(NAINA BAKSHI) (N.K. GOEL) MEMBER PRESIDENT
