DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION-II

Udyog Sadan, C-22 & 23, Qutub Institutional Area

(Behind Qutub Hotel), New Delhi- 110016

Case No.356/2014

Harcharan Singh and Ors.

S/o Avtar Singh,

R/o 3/9 Indira Vikas Colony,

New Delhi - 110009

                                                                                                                        ….Complainant

Versus

Tarojan Creations Pvt. Ltd.

At: 257, Link Road, Flyover Market,

Defence Colony, New Delhi – 24

Through its Director/Authorised Representative

Sh. Tarandeep Singh Bajaj

        ….Opposite Party

       Date of Institution    :         08.09.2014

       Date of Order            :         14.03.2022

Coram:

Ms. Monika A Srivastava, President

Ms. Kiran Kaushal, Member

Sh. U.K. Tyagi, Member

ORDER

President: Ms. Monika A Srivastava

The present complaint has been instituted by 28 complainants, against OP M/s Trojan Creations Pvt. Ltd. The complainants claim to have purchased tickets for live concert of a Punjabi Pop star which was scheduled for 07.09.2012. This Commission vide its order dated 18.09.2012 permitted all the complainants to maintain a single complaint on behalf of all the complainants.

The complaint states that in response to a public advertisement carried out in National daily in New Delhi on 02.09.2012, the complainants purchased tickets of different denomination and in variable quantity from the representatives of the OP, whose phone numbers were given in the advertisement. It is the claim of the complainant that representative of OP delivered tickets to the each of the complainant soon after they were contacted on the phone against receipt of payment for the tickets. The Complainants in para 5 of the complaint gave details of number of tickets and its denomination value purchased by each of the complainant. It is further stated that complainants visited the venue of the concert on 07.09.2012 and were surprised to find that no concert was organized at the said venue. The complainants were advised that concert has been postponed because necessary permissions has not been granted by the competent authorities. They were also informed that concert shall be rescheduled within a period of one month and the tickets already issued shall be honoured on the rescheduled date. Since, the event was not reorganized within the promised one month’s time, the complainants demanded a refund of consideration paid for the ticket. Though the assurance of refund by the OP was made however, the same was not made good. The complainants have claimed deficiency of service against the OP because of non-holding of the concert and failure to refund the value of the ticket to each of the complainant. The complainants have prayed for an aggregate refund of Rs.2,62,000/- towards the cost of tickets purchased by the complainant, Rs.5,000/- towards mental agony and Rs.51,000/- towards litigation expenses. The complainants have filed newspaper advertisement, original tickets purchased by them and copy of police complaint dated 12.05.2014.

The OP was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated  09.01.2015 passed by this Commission however, the said order was set aside by the Hon’ble State Commission vide its order dated 13.02.2018 in RP no. 149/2017. Consequently, the OP filed its Reply, wherein the OP admitted carrying out advertisement for the concert and its failure to organize it on 07.09.2012. It is however stated that event could not be organized on the scheduled date because necessary permission from Delhi Police was declined.

 It is further stated that booking of tickets was exclusively done through an on-line mode through M/s Buzz in Town, who were the ticketing partner of OP. It is further stated the Commissioner of Excise, Entertainment and Luxury Tax of GNCTD, vide its letter dated 13.08.2012 had permitted the OP to sell 700 tickets of different denominations. One of the conditions imposed by the said department of GNCTD was that all the tickets for admission of all denomination in class would be submitted to the office for authentication and signature of the inspector before sale. Accordingly, all the tickets were submitted to the office of the Commissioner of Excise and were collected back after they were authenticated by the concerned department. It is further stated that OP was also to obtain permission from Delhi Police, which permission was however declined on 06.09.2012, a day before the scheduled event. General public was informed about the cancellation of the concert vide publication in the newspaper on 07.09.2012.

It is further stated that the present complaint is not maintainable because there is no privity of contract between complainants and OP. It is stated that booking was exclusively done through M/s Buzz in Town and payment was also received by them. The process of booking was upon receipt of cost of ticket, M/s Buzz in Town was to send an email/message to the customers, which email/message was to be produced for issuance of a physical ticket. It is further stated that no physical tickets were issued at the venue of the concert as the show was cancelled. The authenticity of tickets produced by the complainants was challenged on the ground that serial number indicated on tickets is greater than the number of tickets allowed to be sold and more importantly it did not bear authentication of inspector of the concerned department. The maintainability of complaint was also challenged being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is claimed that M/s Buzz in Town and M/s Singh Creation are necessary parties to the present complaint. The OP has filed letter dated 23.08.2012 issued by Commissioner of Excise, Entertainment and Luxury Tax, GNCTD, letter dated 06.09.2012 by Addl. Commissioner of Police and letter dated 07.09.2012 issued by OP to the Commissioner of Excise informing him about cancellation of event.

A rejoinder has been filed at the behest of complainants wherein the averments made in the complaint are reiterated. Evidence by way of affidavit and written submissions/arguments have been filed by both the parties.

This Commission has carefully gone through the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties and it is noted that show tickets categorically mentions that the event is organized by OP. The advertisement, Ex-CW-1/3, carried out in the newspaper, while using the expression ‘Powered by’  identifies OP as the principal organizer. Undoubtedly, name of M/s Singh Creations and Buzz in Town are found on the said newspaper publication but it clearly identifies M/s Buzz in Town as on-line ticket partner and no description is given to M/s Singh Creations. A musical concert involves participation of several persons who would partner towards the success of any programme.  Principal organiser of an event cannot escape its liability merely because an advertisement promoting an event contains the name of other channel partners. A close look at the newspaper advertisement indicates that tickets could be purchased  via an on-line mode through M/s Buzz in Town, however, four telephone numbers are given under the heading “For tickets and Sponsorship Contact” which clearly means that the tickets could have been purchased through an off-line mode as well. The OP is thus not right in claiming that tickets could be sold only through an on-line mode. As has been held, OP was the principal organizer, M/s Buzz in Town and M/s Singh Creations are not necessary parties to the present complaint. This Commission therefore rejects the twin pleas of OP that there is no privity of contract between the parties and the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.

However, this Commission finds force in the argument of the OP that the tickets produced as CW-1/4 (colly) are forged and fabricated because none of the tickets produced contain an authentication by the officer of Excise, Entertainment and Luxury Tax Department, which was a necessary condition imposed in permission granted by them vide letter dated 23.08.2012. This Commission also notes that complainant in its rejoinder has given an evasive reply to a categorical averment in the Reply/Written statement that  all the tickets were submitted to the office of the Commissioner of Excise and were collected back after they were authenticated by the concerned department and no physical tickets were issued at the venue, which leads to accepting the averments made in the written statement as correct. It has not been satisfactorily explained by the Complainant as to how and when the tickets which were duly authenticated by the officer of Excise, Entertainment and Luxury Tax Department were provided to them. Additionally, the information of tickets filed by complainant in para 5 of the complaint is lesser whereas they have claimed an amount of Rs.2,62,000/- and have filed tickets which amount to much a higher value. This is indicative of the fact that there is something amiss in the facts stated by the complainant.

Therefore, this Commission is of the view that for recovering refund of tickets, it is quintessential that the authenticity of the tickets be proved by the complainant. As has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of SGS India Limited vs Dolphin International AIR 2021 SC 4849

“The onus of proof that there was deficiency in service is on the complainant. If the complainant is able to discharge its initial onus, the burden would then shift to the Respondent in the complaint. The Rule of evidence before the civil proceedings is that the onus would lie on the person who would fail if no evidence is led by the other side”

For the reasons stated above the complaint is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.

File be consigned to the record room after giving copy of the order to the parties. Order be uploaded on the website.