West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/141/2013

Ashim Kumar Chakraborty - Complainant(s)

Versus

Sri Anirban Ghosh - Opp.Party(s)

30 Jul 2014

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

 

 Complaint case No.141/2013                                                         Date of disposal: 30/07/2014                               

 BEFORE : THE HON’BLE PRESIDENT :  Mr. Sujit Kumar Das.

                                                      MEMBER : 

                                                      MEMBER :  Mr. Kapot Chattapadhyay.

   

    For the Complainant/Petitioner/Plaintiff : Mr. S. Das, Advocate.

    For the Defendant/O.P.S.                           : Mr.  P.K. Ghosh, Advocate.                                   

          

    Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, S/o Late Anil Chakraborty, At-Rabindranagar, P.O.  Medinipur, P.S.- Kotwali, Dist- Paschim Medinipur…………..Complainant

                                                           Vs.

 Sri Anirban Ghosh, Proprietor of T.G. Production, R/O 36/5/16, Bhattacharya, Paralane Santragachi, Howrah-711104...……………Ops.

               

                 The case of the complainant Sri   Ashim Kumar Chakraborty, in short, is that he being a Doctor by profession came in touch with the Op for getting service of telecasting his advertisement programme through T.V. chaneels under certain terms and conditions.  Accordingly he paid a total sum of Rs. 51,850/-( Fifty one thousand eight hundred fifty ) only, step by step, and the Op thereupon intimated to the complainant for arrangement in the chamber of the complainant alongwith four T.V. Channels for live telecasting advertisement. According to the agreement, the Op has to come to the chamber of the complainant for making programme.  But the Op invited the complainant to Howrah in connection with the preparation of programme.  But the petitioner refused to do so and thereafter no further programme was held.  Op on that account refunded Rs. 15,000/- and illegally retains Rs. 36,850/-.  It is the grievance of the complainant stated in his case that Op has taken money for rendering service but willfully neglected to do so for which the complainant prayed for compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- with refund of  un expensed amount Rs. 36,850/-.

                  In order to prove the case, the complainant has produced documentary evidence which are accepted on admission of the Ops.   

                  Contd……………………P/2

 

- ( 2 ) -

                  The Op contested the case by filling written objection challenging that the case is not maintainable for want of cause of action and also or the point of jurisdiction.  But it is admitted that the transaction between the parties was held Medinipur chamber of the complainant. In this connection, it is also admitted that the dispute has already been settled by the complainant.  The Op offered a proposal for attending Hellow doctor babu programme conducted by the Op and he may visit the studio of Op at Behala, Kolkata.  Petitioner initially paid Rs. 13,250/- as per agreement. With equipments a team for video recording visited Medinipur from Behala and suiting was conducted and the video recording was viewed through Sonar Bangla T.V. Channel.  C.D. thereof was delivered to the complainant.  Thus on every occasion the Op visited Medinipur from Behala for holding live telecast programme.  Again, on another occasion according to the date and time fixed by the complainant, the Op made arrangement but the complainant failed to cooperate the Op and as a result programme was unsuccessful.  The complainant took back Rs. 15,000/- on 26/03/2013 out of Rs. 38,600/-.  For non appearance of the complainant on different dates for live programme, the Op suffered huge amount of financial loss on account of expenses for due arrangement for video recording etc. and studio rents.  For these reasons the Op requested the complainant to receive Rs. 27,000/- as full and final settlement.  Out of the said sum the petitioner already accepted Rs. 15,000/- and remaining sum of Rs. 12,000./- has to be paid by the Op in favour of the complainant.  So there are no latches on the part of the Op and thereby the case should be dismissed.           

          Upon the case of both parties the following issues are framed.

Issues:

1. Whether the case is maintainable in its present from?
2. Whether the complainant has any cause of action for presentation of this petition of complaint?
3. Whether the case is barred by jurisdiction?
4. Whether the complainant is entitled for getting relief as prayed for.?

 

Decision with reasons

Issue Nos.1 to 4:

              All the issues are taken up together for discussion as those are interlinked each other for the purpose of arriving at a correct decision.

              Ld. Advocate for the complainant made his argument that total sum or Rs. 51,850/- was paid in favour of the Op on different occasions for live telecasting advertisement in favour of the complainant.  For this purpose, the Op took recording in the chamber of the complainant in the district Medinipur according to the terms and conditions of the agreement held between them. 

Contd……………………P/3

 

- ( 3 ) -

But subsequently the Op offered and invitation to the complainant or attending the studio of the Op outside Medinipur which the complainant did not agree.  Ultimately, the Op failed to render service to the complainant despite having receipt of the payment.  So, for failure of giving service, necessary direction for refund of rest amount of Rs. 36,850/- with other ancillary relief is claimed for by the complainant.  The payment is supported by documentary evidence to which the Op raised no objection.

                 Ld. Advocate for the Op made his reply that according to the terms and conditions, necessary arrangements were made by the Op but for want of participation of the complainant, the Op suffered loss of huge amount of money. Even after that, in order to give honour to the complainant, it was settled by the Op for refund of Rs. 12,000/- after adjustment of financial loss on account of arrangement. In this aspect, the prayer for getting refund of Rs. 36,850/- and compensation is not justified and as such the case should be dismissed.

                We have carefully considered the case supported by documentary evidence and the argument as above.  It appears that the video recording and payment undisputedly,  according to  the terms and conditions , were initially held within the jurisdiction of this Forum and as such the case based on valid cause of action and thereby it is maintainable in its present form.

                It is clear admission, so far, it is transpired in the case of the Op, that the payment of Rs. 51,850/- has been made by the complainant in favour of the Op on account of live telecasting programme to be conducted and arranged by the Op in that behalf. In this connection, it is also admitted fact that Op refunded Rs. 15,000/- to the complainant. The grievance of the complainant as it comes up is that the Op failed to continue the service in accordance with the agreement  and on that ground the complainant claims refund of rest amount of money.  To this question the Op agreed for refund of Rs. 12,000/- after deduction of  expenditure on account of due arrangement for giving effect to the live telecast programme on different dates  to which  the complainant willfully and deliberately neglected to attend  the programme. Now we are to decide what actual amount of unused money to be refunded by the Op.  To this question, there is no dispute over the amount of Rs. 12,000/- which the Op agrees for refund in favour of the complainant.  Only issue is to be determined that what actual amount was defrayed on account of arrangement of programme from the end of the Op.  In this subject, there is no statement of account or any sort of evidence to prove the actual amount of expenditure towards the lapse of programme.  Mere presumption is not sufficient to prove the case of expenditure in favour of the Ops.  Thus, we do not find any valid ground in favour of the Op to get the benefit of deduction from the money duly deposited by the complainant. 

                   In context to the above, it is pertinent to consider the fact that the complainant demanded Rs. 22,000/- by his letter dated 15.06.2013 in view of certain back ground as disclosed

Contd……………………P/4

 

 

- ( 4 ) -

by the Op in his case which has not been challenged by the complainant.  This fact leads us to accept the findings that the complainant is satisfied for getting refund of the said amount.

                

                Under the facts and circumstances, as discussed herein above it is held and decided that the case is maintainable in this Forum and the complainant is entitled to get refund of Rs. 22,000/- payable by the OP on account of non-fulfillment of the agreement.  Thus, all the issues are disposed of in favour of the complainant. 

               Hence,

                           It is Ordered,    

                                                    that the case be and the same is allowed  on contest  without cost.

      The complainant do get compensation of Rs. 22,000/-(Twenty two thousand) only, plus interest @ 9% thereon w.e.f. the date of filing of this case till payment within 60 days.

Dic. & Corrected by me

              

         President                                              Member                                  President

                                                                                                                  District Forum

                                                                                                             Paschim Medinipur.