State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Bhagwati Sons Vyapar Pvt. Ltd. vs The Telegraphs & Anr. on 8 January, 2014
D R A F T
State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission
West Bengal
11A, Mirza Ghalib Street, Kolkata - 700087
S.C. CASE NO.
: CC/41/2011
Date of Filing : 19.05.2011 Date of Final Order : 08.01.2014
APPELLANTS/COMPLAINANTS :
M/s. Bhagwati Sons Vyapar
Pvt. Ltd.,
A-32, Kartju Nagar, Kolkata
700 032.
RESPONDENTS/O.P.S :
1) The Telegraphs, a unit of Ananda
Bazar Partrika, 6, Prafullya Sarkar
Street, Kolkata 700 001,
P.S. Bowbazar.
2. M/s. Micro Systems, 87/1, Rippon
Street, Kolkata 700 016,
P.S. Part
Street.
BEFORE : HONBLE JUSTICE : Sri Kalidas
Mukherjee,
President.
MEMBER : Smt. Mridula Roy.
FOR THE PETITIONER /
APPELLANT : Mr. N. R. Mukherjee,
Ld. Advocate.
FOR THE RESPONDENT / O.P.S. : Mr. Prabir Basu,
Ld. Advocate.
: O R D E R :
MRIDULA ROY, MEMBER.
The instant petition of complaint is filed under Section 17 of the Consumer Protection Act.
The case of the Complainant, in brief, is that the Complainant, a Private Limited Company hired the service of the O.P. No. 1 through the O.P. No. 2 being the agent of the O.P. No. 1 for the purpose of advertisement of its product to publish in the newspaper, namely, The Telegraph at a consideration of Rs.5,40,000/- and accordingly, a contract form was submitted by the Complainant to that effect. The Complainant alleged that the O.Ps did not publish the advertisement as per terms contemplated in the contract form.
According to the Complainant, the O.Ps were deficient in providing service and also running unfair trade practice.
The Complainant further alleged that the O.Ps misappropriated all the post dated cheques illegally and also made unilateral publication beyond the schedule without the knowledge and consent of the Complainant. Hence, this case. The Complainant prayed for direction upon the O.Ps to pay a compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- and to pay further compensation of Rs.3,60,000/- being the amount misappropriated by the O.Ps.
The O.Ps entered appearance by filing respective Written Vtatements denying and disputing all material allegations.
In its Written Version the O.P. No. 1 stated that it did not receive any stop payment instruction from the client in writing and, therefore, encashed the post dated cheque according to its date.
The O.P. No. 1 further stated that after publishing 16 insertions out of 26 insertions the rest 10 insertions were not published due to stop publication information from the O.P. No. 2.
According to the O.P. No. 1, it had no deficiency in service and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint with cost.
In its Written Version the O.P. No. 2 referred the para No. 9 of Written Version filed by the O.P. No. 1 and prayed for dismissal of the petition of complaint with cost.
Parties led evidence followed by cross-examination and reply.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the Complainant has submitted that the Complainant became a consumer under the O.Ps by hiring service by paying the amount of consideration. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further submitted that the O.Ps neither acted upon the instruction of the Complainant nor did stick to the terms of the contract as submitted by the Complainant to the O.P. No. 2. Ld. Advocate for the Complainant further stated that for those unscrupulous activities on the part of the O.Ps the Complainant had to suffer loss to a great extent for which the O.Ps were liable to compensate the Complainant.
In course of argument Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps submitted that a private limited company would not be within the purview of the definition of the consumer as contemplated under Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act and, therefore, the instant case is not entertainable under the C. P. Act. In support of his contention Ld. Advocate for the O.Ps cited some decisions (1) I (2012) CPJ 1 Compage Computers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Standard Chartered Bank, (2) 2013 (3) CPR 432 (NC) M/s. Akash Ganga Airlines Ltd. Through its Vice President & Authorised Representative Smt. Kavita Verma vs. Aryavrat Gramin Bank Through its Senior Manager, (3) 2013 (3) CPR 430 (NC) M/s Shri Geeta Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director, Manisha S. Ranasaria vs. M/s Lodha Halthy Constructions & Developers Private Limited (LHCPL) and (4) 2012 (2) CPR 68 (NC) M/s. MCS Computer Services (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. Allena Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd.
On perusal of the decisions referred to above it appears that the Honble National Commission was pleased to hold in M/s. Shri Geeta Infratech Pvt. Ltd. Through its Director, Manisha S. Ranasaria vs. M/s. Lodha Halthy Constructions & Developers Privated Limited (LHCPL) reported in 2013 (3) CPR 430 (NC) that Private Limited Company cannot maintain consumer complaint. Further, in the decision reported in 2012 (2) CPR 68 (NC) M/s. MCS Computer Services (P) Ltd. vs. M/s. Allena Auto Industries Pvt. Ltd. wherein the Honble National Commission held that private limited company cannot file complaint under C. P. Act.
Relying upon the above-mentioned decisions of the Honble National Commission we are of opinion that the Complainant is a Private Limited Company and, as such, instant case is not entertainable before this Commission.
In the result the petition of complaint fails.
Hence, ordered that the complaint is dismissed on contest but without any order as to costs.
MEMBER PRESIDENT