State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Montgomery Guru Nanak Public School vs Oberaison Printers, 165, Bharat Nagar on 22 December, 2009
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, PUNJAB,
SCO NOS.3009-12, SECTOR 22-D, CHANDIGARH.
First Appeal No.834 of 2003
Date of institution: 01.07.2003
Date of decision : 22.12.2009
1. Montgomery Guru Nanak Public School, The Mall, Kapurthala through its
Principal Ms.Inderjit Kaur.
2. Montgomery Guru Nanak Public School, The Mall, Kapurthala through its
Vice Principal and Chief Editor of the School magazine Ms.Prabdeep
Monga.
3. Montgomery Guru Nanak Public School, The Mall, Kapurthala through
Chief Editor of the School Magazine Ms.Kanwaljit Kaur.
.....Appellants
Versus
Oberaison Printers, 165, Bharat Nagar, Adjoining Punjab National Bank,
Ludhiana through its partner Sh.Vinay Oberoi.
.....Respondent
First Appeal against the order dated 30.5.2003
passed by the District Consumer Disputes
Redressal Forum, Kapurthala.
Before:-
Hon'ble Mr.Justice S.N.Aggarwal, President
Lt.Col. Darshan Singh (Retd.), Member
Shri Piare Lal Garg, Member Present:-
For the appellants : Sh.Atul Jain, Advocate
For the respondent : Sh.J.S.Randhawa, Advocate for
Sh.Amit Rawal, Advocate
JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL, PRESIDENT
The appellant approached the respondents and placed an order with them in the first week of February, 2002 for printing of 1500 copies of school Souvenir. It was to be released on the school function scheduled to be held on Vaisakhi day i.e. on 13th April, 2002. The respondents had agreed to supply the printed school souvenir on or before 2nd April, 2002 in the office of the appellants. The draft of the Souvenir was to be got checked/corrected/edited from the editorial staff of the school magazine of the appellants.
2. It was further pleaded that after the settlement of rates with the respondents, they were supplied typed manuscript of the material and the photographs which were to be published in the souvenir. The respondents First Appeal No.834 of 2003 2 submitted the draft to the editorial staff of the school magazine in the first week of March, 2002. However, there were number of mistakes. These were edited and corrected by the editorial staff of the school magazine and the proofs were taken back by the respondents for incorporating the corrections.
3. It was further pleaded that after some days, the respondents again brought the second proof of the draft before the editorial staff. The appellants and the editorial staff of the school magazine were shocked to learn that many of the mistakes corrected in the first draft of the souvenir were not removed in the second draft. The editorial staff again pointed out and noted down the mistakes in the second draft of the souvenir and the corrected version was handed over to the respondents for correcting the draft. The respondents were asked to bring the edited draft of the souvenir at the earliest as the date for the release of souvenir was approaching.
4. It was further pleaded that in the 4th week of March, 2002, the respondents again brought the third draft of the souvenir. It was examined and it was found that besides the earlier mistakes, there were other numerous mistakes in the third draft. Because the Vaisakhi function was a few days away, the appellants directed the editorial staff of the school magazine to go to the work place of the respondents and to get the corrections incorporated in the computer. Although the respondents were bound to bring the drafts of the Souvenir at Kapurthala and to speed up the matter but because of the mistakes in the draft of the Souvenir, Rahul Pabbi and other officials of the appellants went to the place of the respondents to get removed the mistakes in the draft of the Souvenir.
5. It was further pleaded that the appellants had made the payment of Rs.40,000/- to the respondents vide demand draft dated 1.3.2002 for the supply of Souvenir. Since the draft of the Souvenir was not got approved by the respondents and the corrected draft version was not prepared and since Vaisakhi day was very near, therefore, the appellants felt that the release of the Souvenir on Vaisakhi day was not possible and they postponed the release of the Souvenir to some other day. First Appeal No.834 of 2003 3
6. It was repeatedly pleaded that even the Honorary Secretary of the appellants visited that place many times but in vain. Sometimes the respondents were not available even after giving prior appointments. Some of the photographs which were to be published in the Souvenir were lost by the respondents. The appellants with great efforts had to get second copies of the photographs from different sources. Besides the oral request, the appellants had also sent the letter dated 6.8.2002 to the respondents to bring out the final print of the school magazine immediately but the respondents failed to do so. The appellants again wrote letter dated 13.8.2002 to the respondents and again on 19.8.2002. Despite best efforts made by the appellants, the respondents failed to do the job. The appellants were shocked to receive letter dated 3.9.2002 from the respondents that they had unilaterally cancelled the order placed by the appellants with them.
7. It was further pleaded that thereafter the appellants wrote letter dated 10.9.2002 to the respondents calling upon them to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- and also to pay Rs.50,000/- as incidental losses incurred by the appellants. The total costs incurred by the respondents on the computer typing of the draft of the Souvenir could not be more than Rs.1000/- but the respondents failed to refund the amount or to pay the amount of compensation. The appellants then served legal notice dated 13.10.2002. In reply, the respondents took untenable pleas. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents, the appellants filed the complaint against them in the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kapurthala (in short "the District Forum") for the refund of the amount of Rs.40,000/- with interest @ 18% p.a., Rs.2 lacs were also claimed as compensation for mental harassment and agony suffered by the appellants. Interests and costs were also prayed.
8. The respondents filed the written reply. It was admitted that the appellants had placed an order with the respondents for printing of the Souvenir. However, the rates quoted by the appellants were not correct. The rates on which, First Appeal No.834 of 2003 4 the souvenir was to be printed and the terms and conditions of the order were stated in the written reply.
9. It was further pleaded that after the settlement of the rates, the scanning, plate making, processing and computer setting was got done by the respondents from M/s Maya Processors, 13 Partap Colony, Model Gram, Ludhiana and the floppies were prepared by M/s Maya Processors after a lot of conversation and discussion with the Principal and the other staff of the appellants. The job work was done by M/s Maya Processors. It was almost complete on which M/s Maya Processors raised the demand of Rs.81,600/- from the respondents.
10. It was further pleaded that the respondents approached the appellants for a number of times and requested them to remit an amount of Rs.1 lac more but the appellants failed to send the money. While placing the order, it was very well made clear to the appellants that 50% of the total costs of Rs.2,61,880/- would be payable by the appellants in advance and the respondents were to deliver copies of the Souvenir within 45 days from the date of receipt of last manuscript. Inspite of several telephone calls and the requests made by the respondents, the appellants failed to pay the balance amount as was agreed by them.
11. It was further pleaded that the appellants had admitted that the job was completed by M/s Maya Processors at the instance of the respondents. The appellants had admitted having received floppies from M/s Maya Processors by making the payment of Rs.40,000/- to the respondents against the bill for an amount of Rs.81,600/-. The appellants are yet to pay an amount of Rs.41,600/- to the respondents for onward payment to M/s Maya Processors. They were also to pay another amount of Rs.40,000/- for the job got done by the appellants from the respondents. Rather the appellants started making lame excuses to the effect that there were mistakes in the floppies. Infact, there were no mistakes and job was done to the full satisfaction of the appellants. It was denied if there was any deficiency in service on the part of the respondents and dismissal of the complaint was prayed.
First Appeal No.834 of 2003 5
12. The appellants filed the affidavit of Kamaljit Kaur as Ex.C1, affidavit of Pardeep Monga as Ex.C2, affidavit of Inderjit Kaur as Ex.C3 and the affidavit of Ravinder Singh as Ex.C4. They also proved documents Ex.C/5 to Ex.C11. On the other hand, the respondents filed the affidavit of Vinay Oberoi as Ex.R1 and the affidavit of Rajesh Kumar Guleria as Ex.R2. The respondents also proved documents Ex.R3 to Ex.R11.
13. After considering the pleadings of the parties and the affidavits/documents produced on the file by them, the learned District Forum dismissed the complaint vide impugned order dated 30.5.2003 and the parties were relegated to the Civil Court.
14. Hence, the appeal.
15. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants was that the appeal be accepted and the impugned judgment dated 30.5.2003 be set aside and the respondents be directed to refund the money with interest, costs and compensation.
16. On the other hand, the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents was that there was no merit in the present appeal and the same be dismissed.
17. Record has been perused. Submissions have been considered.
18. There is no denying the fact that the appellants had placed an order in the month of February, 2002 itself with the respondents for the printing of 1500 copies of the Souvenir. It has also been admitted by the respondents that the said order was placed in the month of February, 2002 for which the respondents themselves have proved the quotations submitted by them vide letter dated 24.1.2002 (Ex.R7) and letter dated 2.2.2002 (Ex.R6).
19. The respondents themselves had undertaken in the quotations Ex.R5 to Ex.R7 that they would supply the printed souvenir within 45 days from the date of receipt of last manuscript.
First Appeal No.834 of 2003 6
20. The appellants have taken the plea that the souvenir was to be released on Vaisakhi day i.e. 13.04.2002. This fact is proved by the appellants by the affidavit of Kamaljit Kaur, Chief Editor Ex.C1, by the affidavit of Pardeep Monga, Vice Principal Ex.C/2 and by the affidavit of Inderjit Kaur, Principal Ex.C3.
21. The respondents have not controverted this fact that the Souvenir was to be released on Vaisakhi day i.e. 13.4.2002.
22. The appellants have also taken the plea in the complaint that the draft Souvenir was submitted by the respondents to the editorial staff of the school magazine at Kapurthala in the first week of March, 2002 but there were numerous mistakes in it.
23. This fact was nowhere controverted by the respondents in the corresponding paragraph of the written reply. Rather they have taken a different plea that the job was got done from M/s Maya Processors. The work was complete and the M/s Maya Processors had raised the demand of Rs.81,600/- from the respondents. The appellants were requested to send an amount of Rs.1 lac more against the total costs of Rs.2,61,880/- but the appellants failed to do so. In support of the plea taken by the respondents, they had produced the bill dated 8.2.2003 (Ex.R4) of M/s Maya Processors demanding an amount of Rs.81,600/-.
24. This document does not support the version of the respondents. The appellants had pleaded and proved that the first draft of the Souvenir was submitted by the appellants with the respondents in the first week of March, 2002 but the respondents have not placed on the file any document to show if any bill was issued by M/s Maya Processors in March, 2002 or in April, 2002 or in May, 2002 for an amount of Rs.81,600/- or for any amount or if any such bill of M/s Maya Processors was forwarded by the respondents to the appellants demanding this amount from them.
25. Similarly, in order to prove that the respondents had demanded a sum of Rs.1 lac from the appellants against the total costs of Rs.2,61,880/- for First Appeal No.834 of 2003 7 printing of the Souvenir, the respondents have placed on the file letter dated 24.8.2002 Ex.R8. This letter again appears to be off the track. It does not prove if any such demand was made by the respondents from the appellants in the months of March or April, 2002. If the respondents had proved any such demand made by the respondents in the months of February or March or April, 2002, it could be presumed that the story of the appellants about mistakes in the draft Souvenir was a concocted story. But the appellants have proved that the draft of the Souvenir submitted in the first week of March, 2002 to the editorial staff of the school magazine by the respondents was full of mistakes. Had it not been so, the Souvenir would have been released on the scheduled Vaisakhi day in 2002 i.e. on 13.4.2002.
26. The appellants had made the payment of Rs.40,000/- to the respondents in advance and inspite of the fact that the officials of the appellants visited the place of the respondents on numerous occasions and also requested the respondents on telephone to produce the corrected draft Souvenir for approval from the editorial staff of the school magazine of the appellants but the respondents did not care to do so nor they had refunded the amount of Rs.40,000/-. Rather the respondents came up with a different story as discussed above to conceal their own faults. Therefore, the respondents obviously have committed deficiency in service and failed to provide the services which were hired by the appellants.
27. The respondents have taken another plea that the work on the Sourvenir was complete and the floppies were prepared by M/s Maya Processor but instead of making the payment, the appellants had taken the floppies from M/s Maya Processors directly.
28. The respondents have failed to prove this version pleaded by them in the written reply. They have not filed any document on the file to prove this version nor they have filed any affidavit of any of the proprietor, manager or officials of M/s Maya Processors to the effect that they had given the floppies or First Appeal No.834 of 2003 8 prepared material to the appellants. It appears, therefore, that the respondents had taken this plea only to cover up their own negligence and deficiency in service.
29. It is, therefore, clearly proved that the respondents have committed deficiency in service by not preparing the printed Souvenir which was scheduled to be released on the Vaisakhi day i.e. on 13.04.2002. They also failed to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- .
30. In view of the above discussions held above, this appeal is accepted and the impugned judgment dated 30.5.2003 is set aside. The respondents are directed to refund the amount of Rs.40,000/- to the appellants with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of payment of this amount till the date of refund of this amount by the respondents to the appellants.
31. Since the appellants could not release the Souvenir on the scheduled time and since they had made repeated visits to the place of the respondents, therefore, the appellants are also awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.20,000/-.
32. The appellants are also entitled to the costs of litigation which is assessed at Rs.10,000/-.
33. The arguments in this appeal were heard on 10.12.2009 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties.
34. The appeal could not be decided within the statutory period due to heavy pendency of Court cases.
(JUSTICE S.N.AGGARWAL) PRESIDENT (LT. COL. DARSHAN SINGH-RETD.) MEMBER (PIARE LAL GARG) MEMBER December 22 , 2009.
Paritosh