Haryana

Ambala

CC/173/2020

Vijay Kumar Puri - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sh Paras Nath MD Delhi Press Patra Parkashan Pvt ltd - Opp.Party(s)

18 Jul 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, AMBALA.

 

                                                           Complaint case no.         :     173 of 2020

                                                          Date of Institution           :     25.08.2020

                                                          Date of decision     :     18.07.2022.

Vijay Kumar Puri S/o Sh. Amrit Lal Puri, Aged 63 years, Resident of 33, Palika Vihar, Ambala City.

                                                                             ……. Complainant.

                                      Versus

1. Sh. Paras Nath (MD), Delhi Press Patra Parkashan Pvt. Ltd., E-8, Jhandewalan Estate, New Delhi-110055.
2. Customer Relation Officer, Delhi Press Samachar Patra Pvt. Ltd., A-36, Site No.4, Industrial Area, Sahibabad UP (201010).

                                                                    ….…. Opposite Parties.

Before:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

                   Smt. Ruby Sharma, Member,

Shri Vinod Kumar Sharma, Member.

 

Present:       Shri Rahul Vig, Advocate, counsel for the complainant.

Shri Manoj Kumar Rohilla, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.1.

Shri C.M. Attri, Advocate, counsel for the OP No.2.

 

Order:        Smt. Neena Sandhu, President.

1.                Complainant has filed this complaint under Section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as ‘OPs’) praying for issuance of directions to the OPs, to refund the amount of Rs.12,650/-, deposited by the complainant with them alongwith compensation for the mental agony and litigation expenses as the Hon’ble Court may deem proper.

2.           Brief facts of the case are that the complainant was a member of OP No.2 under refundable deposit scheme since 05.01.2001, for free supply of magazines Sarita and Grihsobha. The said magazines were supplied to him till December 2019, but the same were discontinued thereafter. Complainant wrote number of letters to the OPs to refund the amount of Rs.12,650/-, as the OPs discontinued the said magazines but to no avail.  By not refunding the amount paid by the complainant, the OPs have committed deficiency in service. Hence, the present complaint.
3.           Upon notice, OP No.1 appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability etc. On merits, it has been stated that since the complainant had paid the sale consideration to the Delhi Press Samachar Patra (P) Ltd i.e OP No.2; magazines were also to be provided by OP No.2; and the complainant has failed to prove that there was any privity of contract with OP No.1, as such, this complaint is not maintainable against the answering OP. There is no such order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Hon’ble NCLT. OP No.2 has failed to discharge its obligations under the Memorandum of Family Settlement. In view of the partial implementation of the memorandum of Family Settlement and the failure of the Op No.2 to settle the dues with the answering OP, it is wrong to state that the OP No.1 has taken over the liability of the customers of OP No.2, who had given deposits. Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OP No.1 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint against it.
4.           Upon notice, OP No.2 appeared and filed written version, raised preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, jurisdiction and bad for mis-joinder etc. On merits, it has been stated that in the year 2016, one of the Director of the OP No.1 Shri Paresh Nath had filed Company Petition No.97/ND/2016 before the Company Law Tribunal, which matter finally went upto the NCLT. In order to resolve the issue, the NCLT appointed former Chairman of Company Law Board, as facilitator. Thereafter, the dispute was sorted out and the assets and liabilities of the companies were sorted out and divided vide Family Settlement Deed dated 28.06.2017, which was accepted by the NCLT and it became effective vide order dated 01.07.2017. Under the said settlement, all properties, interest, money including deposits for supply of magazines etc. were transferred to OP No.1 and as such it is liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant. Even from the year 2017, the magazines were supplied to the complainant by OP No.1 only, under the said Settlement Deed.  Rest of the averments of the complainant were denied by the answering OP No.2 and prayed for dismissal of the present complaint against it.
5.           Learned counsel for the complainant tendered affidavit of complainant as Annexure CW1/A alongwith documents as Annexure C-1 to C-13 and closed the evidence on behalf of complainant. On the other hand, learned counsel for the OP No.1 has made a statement that the written version filed by OP No.1 be treated evidence on behalf of OP No.1 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.1. Learned counsel for the OP No.2 tendered affidavit of Shri Rakesh Nath, Director of Delhi Press Samachar Patra Pvt. Ltd., as Annexure RW-2/A alongwith documents Annexure R-2/1 to R-2/3 and closed the evidence on behalf of OP No.2.
6.           We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully gone through the case file and also gone through the written arguments filed by the learned counsel for the OP No.1.
7.           Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the fact of not refunding the amount of Rs.12,650/- by the OPs, despite the fact that the supply of magazines was stopped by them from January 2020, amounts to deficiency in providing service and adoption of unfair trade practice. As such, the complainant is entitled for refund of the said amount alongwith compensation and litigation expenses.
8.           On the contrary, the learned counsel for the OP No.1 has submitted that since the complainant has failed to prove that there was any privity of contract between him and the OP No.1, in the matter and also at the same time, the OP No.2 failed to honour the Family Settlement referred to above, as such, the present complaint against the OP No.1 is not maintainable.
9.           At the same time, the learned counsel for the OP No.2 has submitted that vide Settlement Deed dated 28.06.2017, referred above, which was accepted by the NCLT and it became effective vide order dated 01.07.2017, since all properties, interest, money including deposits for supply of magazines etc. were transferred to OP No.1 and as such OP No.1 is liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant and not the OP No.2.
10.           Under above circumstances, the moot question which falls for consideration is, as to who is liable to refund the amount of Rs.12,650/-  to the complainant. It is evident from the record, that vide receipt dated 05.01.2001, Annexure C-1 the complainant had  paid an amount of Rs.12,650/- to OP No.2 only and became its member, under refundable deposit scheme, for free supply of magazines Sarita and Grihsobha. Thus, the privity of contract, if any, was between the complainant and OP No.2 only.

However, to wriggle out of the situation, learned counsel for OP No.2 while placing reliance on the Family Settlement Deed dated 28.06.2017, Annexure R2/1, contended that since it was settled between the OPs No.1 and 2 vide clause 2.13 that all transfers of properties, interest, money including deposits for supply of magazines etc. were transferred to OP No.1, as such OP No.1 is liable to refund the amount paid by the complainant. We do not agree with the contention raised on account of the reason that:- firstly, as stated above, OP No.2 has failed to prove that there was any privity of contract between the complainant and OP No.1 in the matter and secondly, on account of the candid statement given by OP No.1 in its written version that OP No.2 has failed to fulfil its obligations under the saidFamily Settlement Deed. It is significant to mention here that the OP No.2 failed to controvert or challenge the said contention raised by OP No.1 to the effect that OP No.2 has failed to fulfil its obligation under the said Family Settlement Deed. Significantly, there is nothing on record to prove that any consent of the complainant and other subscribers of the said magazines were taken to enter into the said Family Settlement Deed between OPs No.1 and 2.

Thus, under above circumstances, in our considered opinion, once it has been proved on record that the amount of Rs.12,650/-, has been received from the complainant by the OP No.2 only, as such, for any alleged inter-se dispute between OPs No.1 and 2, the complainant cannot be made scapegoat and thus OP No.2, to whom complainant paid Rs.12,650/-, is liable to refund the said amount to him.

11.           In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hereby dismiss the present complaint against OP No.1 and allow the same against OP No.2 and direct it, in the following manner:-
    1. To refund the amount of Rs.12,650/- to the complainant alongwith interest @5% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint i.e 28.08.2020, till its realisation.
    2. To pay Rs.3,000/-, as compensation for the mental agony and physical harassment  suffered by the complainant.
    3. To pay Rs.2,000/- as litigation costs.

The OP No.2 is further directed to comply with the aforesaid directions within the period of 45 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. Certified copy of the order be supplied to the parties concerned, forthwith, free of cost as permissible under Rules. File be indexed and consigned to the Record Room.

Announced on: 18.07.2022.

 

          (Vinod Kumar Sharma)  (Ruby Sharma)               (Neena Sandhu)

              Member                         Member                       President