DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II
Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area
(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016
Case No.388/2014
Arvind Bansal
Flat No. D-42,
Court Residential Complex,
Saket, New Delhi
….Complainant
Versus
Saregama Music Industries,
12-B, Vandhana Bldg, 11,
Totstoy Mg, Cannaught Place,
New Delhi
Musicland
(A unit of G.V.P video Pvt. Ltd.)
Shop No. 284, 1st Floor,
DLF Place, Saket-110017
….Opposite Parties
Date of Institution : 13.10.2014
Date of Order : 01.02.2022
Coram:
Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President
Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member
Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member
ORDER
President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava
This is a classic case of English idiom “Don’t judge a book by its cover”.
The gist of the complaint is that the complainant purchased a musical CD titled as “Gems of Punjab” which carried the name “Shiv Kumar Bethalvi” on it. The CD was purchased from OP 2 and was published by OP1 i.e Saregama. Complainant claims that he has interest in Punjabi Music and is a great admirer of Shiv Kumar Bethalvi (hereinafter referred to as ‘Bethalvi’). The complainant further claimed that from the particulars given on the CD, he purchased the same under the impression that CD contains the songs “sung” by ‘Bethalvi’. It is further stated that upon playing the CD he was shocked that songs were the poems written by ‘Bethalvi’and were sung by other artists. This was contrary to the complainant’s belief that the songs were “sung” by ‘Bethalvi’.
According to complainant placing of picture on the cover without any details and description of the artists who have sung has led to a presumption in the minds of the bonafide buyers that the songs are sung by the persons whose picture is carried on the CD. In support of their above argument the complainant has produced pictures of three CD’s published by OP 1. The first CD is titled as “Geet Tere Saaz Ke”, names and pictures of Sh. Anand Bakshi , Sh. Laxmi Kant and Sh. Pyarelal are placed on the CD. This CD also contains lists of title of songs and name of movie and the singer who has sung this song. The other CD is titled as “Ehsaas Pyar ka” which contains picture of Ms. Asha Bhosle and title of songs along with the name of other singers who have sung along with Ms. Asha Bhosle. The third CD is “The Magic of Yash Chopra-The Romance King” which carries the picture of Shri Yash Chopra, title of songs, name of singer, music director and lyricist.
OP 1 has challenged the jurisdiction of this Commission to adjudicate upon this issue because the matter requires evidence to be led, cross examination to be conducted and cannot be decided summarily, which requires the matter to be tried by the civil court.
On facts, OP 1 does not dispute that the CD contains the picture of ‘Bethalvi’, title of songs recorded therein, and also that the names of singers was not stated in the CD. Their defence is that ‘Bethalvi’ is a poet and not a singer and the CD contains collection of songs on his poetic writings sung by various artists. It is further stated in their reply that ‘Bethalvi’ was an extremely renowned and popular Punjabi language poet who was the youngest recipient of Sahitya Academy Award in 1967. The OP has also stated that ‘Gems of Punjab’ does not only refer to singers from Punjab but the different artists who have contributed to the field of music and are hailing from Punjab.
The OP 1 has further argued that there is no requirement under the law to give the details of singer, lyricist and music directors. They rely upon section 52A of the Copyright Act 1957 to state that the publisher of music has to mandatorily carry the name of the owner of copyright of a particular song contained in the CD. In the instant case, the owner of the copy right is OP 1 whose name is conspicuously displayed. In the illustrations given by the complainant, only one CD contains the name and picture of singer. The other two Cds does not display the picture of the singer however it displays the pictures of director, musician and lyricist. Therefore it cannot be taken as a rule that picture of lyricist/director/musician would be indicative of their being singer in the CD and is not likely to cause reasonable confusion in the minds of the buyers that the songs recorded therein are sung by the person whose picture is displayed.
Complainant in his rejoinder adds that ‘Bethalvi’ was awarded Padma Bhushan posthumously in 2001. He further admits that undoubtedly ‘Bethalvi’ was a famous poet but that does not mean that he cannot be a singer. Complainant further claims there are many videos and audios of the poet singer available where he has sung the poetry himself. The complainant claims to be aware of songs sung by ‘Bethalvi’ at Jalandhar Doordarshan whose recordings may be available and that he used to recite his poetry at Kavi Sammelans. The complainant in its rejoinder has claimed that in case of consumers who have not heard about ‘Bethalvi’ would be misguided by the picture of ‘Bethalvi’ on the cover to believe he is the singer of the songs.
We first deal with the issue of jurisdiction and in this regard the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of J J Merchant vs Shrinath Chaturvedi AIR 2002 SC 2931 is relevant wherein it is stated
“It was next contended that such complicated questions of facts cannot be decided in summary proceedings. In our view, this submission also requires to be rejected because under the Act, for summary or speedy trial, exhaustive procedure in conformity with the principles of natural justice is provided. Therefore, merely because it is mentioned that Commission or Forum is required to have summary trial would hardly be a ground for directing the consumer to approach the Civil Court. For trial to be just and reasonable long drawn delayed procedure, giving ample opportunity to the litigant to harass the aggrieved other side is not necessary. It should be kept in mind that legislature has provided alternative efficacious, simple. Inexpensive and speedy remedy to the consumers and that should not be curtailed on such ground. It would also be totally wrong assumption that because summary trial is provided, justice cannot be done when some questions of facts are required to be dealt with or decided. The Act providers sufficient safeguards”.
The above position was reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in CCI Chambers Co-op Housing Society Limited vs Development Credit Bank Limited AIR 2004 SC 184 by holding the following:
“The decisive test is not the complicated nature of the questions of fact and law arising for decision. The anvil on which entertainability of a complaint by a forum under the Act is to be determined is whether the questions, though complicated they may be, are capable of being determined by summary enquiry i.e. by doing away with the need of a detailed and complicated method of recording evidence. It has to be remembered that the for a under the Act at every level are headed by experienced persons. The National Commission is headed by a person who is or has been a Judge of the Supreme Court. The State Commission is headed by a person who is or has been a Judge of the High Court, Each District Forum is headed by person who is, or has been, or is qualified to be a District Judge. We do not think that mere complication either of facts or of law can be a ground for the denial of hearing by a forum under the Act”.
The Hon’ble NCDRC in the matter of Narinder Kumar vs Sanjiv Kumar, Revision Petition no. 299 of 2000 has held Consumer Protection Act is a benevolent legislation and its provisions are to be given liberal consideration and NCDRC cannot put restriction on the jurisdiction of the Forum established under the Act.
In view of the above-mentioned judgments, this Commission holds that it has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute at hand. In any case, in the present case, factually there is no dispute between the parties which would require trial. Hence this plea of the OP 1 is rejected.
Next, the controversy which requires adjudication is whether the complainant is justified in drawing an inference from the cover of CD that the CD contains the songs “sung” by ‘Bethalvi’. It is significant to note that Complainant has not produced any evidence to prove that ‘Bethalvi’ was also a singer besides being a poet.
The complainant in this case is a well-educated person and holds responsible office besides being an ardent admirer of ‘Bethalvi’. This Commission is unable to persuade itself that complainant was misled by the picture of ‘Bethalvi’ to raise a presumption that the songs recorded therein are sung by ‘Bethalvi’.
In the present complaint, this Commission is concerned whether on the facts of the case there is a likelihood of complainant, who as stated above, is a responsible officer and his chances of being misled are negligible, for which reason this Commission is not entertaining the plea that other people would be misled by the cover of the CD. The present complaint is not a class action under section 12(1)(c) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and therefore this complaint does not deal with misrepresentation caused to persons of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.
For the foregoing reasons the present complaint is dismissed. No order as to costs.
File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.
