Haryana

Panchkula

CC/279/2020

RE.R.K. BAGGA. - Complainant(s)

Versus

SH PARESH NATH,MD. - Opp.Party(s)

R.K BAGGA.

28 Jan 2022

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PANCHKULA

                                                              

Consumer Complaint No	:	279 of 2020
Date of Institution	:	14.09.2020
Date of Decision	:	28.01.2022

 

R.K. Bagga, 415, Sector-16, Panchkula.

 

                                                                        ….Complainant. 

Versus

Sh. Paresh Nath, MD, Delhi Press Patra Parkashan (P) Ltd., E8, Jhandewala Estates, New Delhi-110055.

….Opposite Party

COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 35 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.

 

Before:                Sh.Satpal, President.

Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini, Member.

Dr. Sushma Garg, Member.

 

For the Parties:    Complainant in person.

                           Shri Manoj Kumar Rohilla, Advocate and Sh.Harnek        Sandhu, Advocate, counsel for the OP.

ORDER

(Satpal, President)

1.               The brief facts of the present complaint are that Delhi Press Samachar Patra (P) Ltd., E3 Jhandewala Estate New Delhi 110055 owned by Late Sh.Vishwa Nath, was in the business of printing, issuing & distributing various magazines. Long time back, the said company brought out a scheme vide which a person by depositing a particular amount could get a particular magazine without paying anything else and the deposit was refundable after notice of six months from either side; the deposited amount was increased from time to time and on date the deposit amount was Rs.9,750/-,the said person stopped giving any magazines to the members of the scheme and the deposited amount was also not refunded in spite of repeated requests; after the demise of Shri Vishva Nath, in the year 2002, for some years, the desired magazines were being received, but since 2016-17, due to their family dispute between his two sons i.e. Shri Paresh Nath and Divesh Nath, subscription were not receiving of any magazines. Vide letter dated 5^th April, 2018, depositors were asked to request for the refund of the deposited amount, in case, depositor while not interested and as such the undersigned requested for the refund of the deposited amount and the deposit receipt duly signed was sent to the OP. During the course of last 2½ years, his repeated letters, telephonic calls and personal visit to the Delhi office during June 18 did not evoke any positive response. At the time of his personal visit to the office of OP one Mrs. Bindu described him about the family dispute, but failed to commit anything about the refund of his deposit. In reference to complainant’s letter dated 4^th March, 2020, Delhi Press Samachar Patra (P) Ltd. (owned by Divesh Nath), sent him the detailed correspondence with upto date position/photocopies, wherein it was clearly stated that the matter was referred to the company law board and it has given its verdict. It is a settled matter that Sh. Paresh Nath, MD of Delhi Patra Parkashan (P) Ltd.,E8, Jhandewala Estates New Delhi is to refund the deposited amount, but in spite of this, large number of letters sent by him remains unacknowledged and un-responded. Due to the acts and conduct of the OP, the complainant has suffered a great mental agony, harassment and financial loss; hence, the present complaint.

2.               Upon notice, OP appeared through counsel and filed written statement raising objections such as complaint is not maintainable etc. On merits, it is stated that there is no contract between the complainant and the respondent. No consideration has been paid by the complainant to the respondent; OP did not provide any service to the complainant. Complainant has intentionally filed the present complaint only to harass the OP and extract undue advantage. If the complainant has any grievance, it ought to sue M/s Delhi Press Samachar Patra (P) Ltd., to whom he has paid the subscription amount. With  regard to enclosure ‘E’ it is averred that no such order dated 08.08.2017, in company petition No.97(ND) of 2016 as alleged and reproduced, was passed by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal. The family settlement referred to by M/s Delhi Press Samachar Patra Private Ltd. is irrelevant to the grievances of the complainant. M/s Delhi Samachar Patra Private Ltd. have not discharged all its obligations under the memorandum of family settlement and the reliance on the order of NCLT is false and an attempt is made to wrongly shift the onus of its obligations on the OP. If the complainant has any grievances against M/s Delhi Samachar Patra Private Ltd., it ought to file appropriate proceedings against it and not against the OP. Further, the OP has prayed for dismissal of the present complaint with costs.

3.               To prove its case, complainant tendered his affidavit as Annexure C/A along with documents Annexure C-1 to C-7 in evidence and closed the evidence by making a separate statement. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the OP, tendered affidavit of Shri Anant Nath son of Shri Paresh Nath, resident of E-32, Kalindi Colony, New Delhi as Annexure RA and closed the evidence.

                  During the course of arguments, the complainant has submitted the accounts statement showing the balance amount of Rs.9,750/- towards the Delhi Press Samachar Pvt. Ltd.,  which we take on record as Mark A for the adjudication of the dispute in a proper and fair manner.

5.               We have heard the complainant and learned counsel for the OP and gone through the record including written arguments filed by the complainant as well as learned counsel for the OP, carefully.

6.               Evidently, the complainant was subscriber of the Magazines printed by Delhi Press Samachar Patra(P) Ltd., which was initially owned by Shri Vishva Nath and after his death in the year 2002,  a family dispute arose between his two sons, namely, Shri Paresh Nath and Divesh Nath, in the year 2016-17, which resulted into the non-publication/non delivery of the desired magazines to the subscribers of Delhi Press Samachar Patra(P) Ltd.

7.               In the present complaint a sum of Rs.9,750/- allegedly deposited by the complainant with Delhi Press Samachar Patra(P) Ltd. has been claimed from Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Private Limited(OP) on the ground that the business of Delhi Press Samachar Patra(P) Ltd. has been taken over by Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Private Limited(OP)  headed/ owned by Sh. Paresh Nath. The OP has denied its liability in the matter stating that Delhi Press Samachar Patra(P) Ltd. alone is liable to refund the subscription amount. It is stated that there is no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and the OP as no consideration was ever paid by the complainant to it. The opposite party has denied that it has ever taken over the liability of customers of Delhi Press Samachar Patra(P) Ltd.

8.               The version of the opposite party denying its liability in the matter has no leg to stand in view of the clear recitals made in the letters Annexure C-2 and Annexure C-5, that as per family settlement dated 28.06.2017, which was confirmed by National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), vide petition CP No.97/ND/2016, it is the duty of the opposite party to refund the subscription amount of its consumers including the complainant. As per Annexure C-5, which is written by Delhi Press Samachar Patra(P) Ltd. to the consumers, the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi in the company petition No.97(ND) of 2016 vide order dated 08.08.2017 has passed the following directions:-

                  “The shareholders and directors of Delhi Press Patra Prakashan      Pvt.Ltd          have agreed that Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. shall take over the      liability of Magazine Subscription Scheme of readers, and the same shall be   serviced/dealt with by Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Pvt. Ltd. in future, for the supply of magazines and fulfill liabilities of refunds/repayments, if any.”

9.               Further, the letter Annexure C-3 and letter Annexure C-7 also indicate towards the liability of the opposite party to refund the subscription amount to the complainant. Further, it has been revealed that that after the family dispute, Shri Paresh Nath and Shri Divesh Nath arrived at a family settlement before the National Company Law Tribunal, as mentioned in the letter dated 02.06.2020. The opposite party has also stated in para No.8 of its reply that M/s Delhi Press Samachar Patra(P) Ltd. has not discharged its obligation under the family settlement. Further it is stated that in view of the partial implementation of the memorandum of family settlement and the failure of the Delhi Press Samachar Patra(P) Ltd. to settle the funds with the opposite party, no liability can be fastened upon the opposite party. The aforementioned averments made by the OP in its reply leave no scope of any doubt as to the fact that as per family settlement made before the NCLT in petition no.97 of 2016, the liability of the Delhi Press Samachar Patra(P) Ltd. was taken over by Delhi Press Patra Prakashan Private Limited(OP) and as such, the OP is clearly liable to refund the amount of Rs.9,750/- alongwith interest to the complainant.

10.             Moreover, the complainant being a senior citizen above 88 years of age cannot be left in lurch on account of family dispute.

11.             In our considered opinion, the genuine claim of the complainant cannot be allowed to be defeated by taking the plea of family dispute; hence the complainant is entitled to relief.

12.             As a sequel to above discussion, we partly allow the present complaint with the following directions to the OP:-

                           (i)     To refund Rs. 9,750/- to the complainant along    with interest @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of                             filing of the complaint till its realization.

                           (ii)     To pay a lump- sum amount of Rs.5,000/- to the    complainant on account of mental agony,                                           physical harassment and litigation charges.

 

13.             The OP shall comply with the order within a period of 45 days from the date of communication of copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be at liberty to approach this Commission for initiation of proceedings under Section 71/72 of CP Act, against the OP. A copy of this order shall be forwarded, free of cost, to the parties to the complaint and file be consigned to record room after due compliance.

Announced: 28.01.2022

 

Dr. Sushma Garg          Dr. Pawan Kumar Saini          Satpal        

                  Member                        Member                     President

 

Note: Each and every page of this order has been duly signed by me.

 

                                                Satpal                                

  President