AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
IN response to a proposal from the complainant who wanted to advertise its business concern it was agreed that the respondents shall instal a hoarding, i.e. a large board used for displaying advertisement near Swarg-Ashram on the Chandigarh-Ambala Highway and it shall also have provision for illumination. IN this regard the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- on 15.10.1997 and Rs. 96,000/- on 24.11.1997 as charges. The respondents did instal the hoarding but it was without illumination. Besides this the respondents shifted the hoarding on 11.5.1998 without consent of the complainant. The loss claimed by the complainant for non-fulfilment of the services is reproduced as under : "(i) Rs. 1,25,000/- for non-illumination of the hoarding from 15.1.1998 to 28.6.1998. (ii) Rs. 12,00,000/- for unauthorised shifting of the hoarding from 1.7.1998 to 19.10.1998 which was done without consent of the complainant and on behest of the opposite party No. 3. (iii) INterest @ 18% p.a. on the awarded amount from the date of filing the complaint till realisation. (iv) Costs of the complaint may also be awarded to the complainant."
THE respondents have filed a reply wherein it has been averred that the hoarding was displayed at Goverdhan Nagar, G.T. Road, Model Town, Ambala City but it was objected to by the Local Authorities and it was brought to the notice of the complainant by means of letter No. SM/AMB/98-99/014 dated 4.4.1998. Besides this there was a direction from the Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh requiring removal of the encroachment within 20 feet on the P.W.D. land. THE respondents informed the complainant vide their letter No. SM/AMB/98-99/102 dated 11.5.1998, Annexure-II. THE hoarding has now been shifted to protect the interest of the complainant so that it may not be disturbed and the complainant may avail of its display. THEreafter the hoarding was displayed at a different site which the respondents were able to obtain from one Lalit Kumar Puri. THE land owner also possessed stay order from a competent Court in respect of the changed site and there had been no loss or injury to the complainant and he is not entitled to any refund or damages and on the contrary he should be burdened for dragging the respondents to litigation. The learned Counsel for the complainant has drawn our attention to the agreement inter se the parties dated 8.10.1997, Annexure C-2, which shows the name of work and the important clauses contained therein are reproduced as under : "Name o "Name of Work : Contract for erection of illuminated hoarding Work commencing on : 20.10.1997 Work ends on : 19.10.1998."
Here the work did not continue till the stipulated date, i.e. 19.10.1998 because a notice was received on 11.5.1998 for removal and it was acted upon by the respondent to save itself from other legal liabilities. Thus the advertisement was availed scarcely for about seven months and that too without the promised illumination. This is a case where the respondents invited the complainant on an attractive proposal of advertisement for which it was not capable of implementing in accordance with its proposal. The complainant had requested on 11.6.1998 that since illumination part was not acted upon the respondents should make a refund from 15.1.1998 onwards.
The conclusion is that here the hoarding was availed without illumination by the complainant for seven months. We hold that the respondents are liable to refund 50% of the deposit within two months of this order, failing which they shall also be liable to pay interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of institution of the complaint till realization. Complaint disposed of.