PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES AND EXPORT CORPORATION vs WORLD TRADE FAIR, NET WORK CONSULTANCY

PUNJAB Small Industries and Export Corporation instituted a complaint for recovery of Rs. 41,500/- which was wrongfully withheld together with damages, interest and costs but it was dismissed by the District Forum-II, Chandigarh on 9.8.1999 holding that the dispute involved relationship of landlord and tenant and hence not within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Aggrieved against it the present appeal has been preferred.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the respondents in a letter addressed to the then Chief Minister of Punjab (Shri Beant Singh) invited the appellant - Corporation along with others to participate as "Partner State" in World Trade and International Exhibition and Conference on "Foreign Collaborations, Industrial and Business Opportunities'' to be held at Hyderabad from 1st to 10th of January, 1993. In response to the invitation, the appellants booked five stalls and a demand draft of Rs. 76,500/- (Annexure P/3) dated 7.9.1992 was sent and the same was acknowledged by the respondents vide Receipt No. 34 dated 13.8.1993 (Annexure P/4). However, vide their letter dated 21.9.1992 the appellant - Corporation was informed by the respondents that the above stated exhibition and conference will be held from 18th to 28th March, 1993 at New Delhi in place of Hyderabad. Since change in the dates and venue was not considered suitable by the appellants and it was not possible for them to participate, they requested the respondents vide their communication dated 15.10.1992 to refund the sum of Rs. 76,500/-. After protracted correspondence on the subject, the respondents issued a Cheque No. 865312 dated 13.7.1993 amounting to Rs. 76,500/- towards the refund but the cheque was dishonoured due to paucity of funds. However on 13.7.1993 a refund of Rs. 35,000/- was made by the respondents and it was requested in the same communication that the above mentioned dishonoured cheque should be returned to them (respondents) and balance amount was promised to be sent on the receipt of the above stated dishonoured cheque. But since the balance of Rs. 41,500/- was not refunded by the respondents in spite of repeated letters, telephonic communications and Fax messages etc. the complainant now appellants instituted the complaint in the District Forum alleging deficiency on the part of opposite parties now respondents and demanded damages of Rs. 20,000/-, loss of interest on the balance amount of Rs. 41,500/- and costs of litigation. Since the service could not be effected in spite of best efforts by the District Forum, a proclamation notice was also published in the Daily Indian Express, Hyderabad dated 25.11.1996 but nobody appeared on behalf of the opposite party, the proceedings in the District Forum were ordered ex-parte. The District Forum in its order dated 9.8.1999 held that since the above stated disputed amount pertains to space rent charges consequently the complainant''s case is not covered under the Consumer Protection Act, rather it was a dispute between landlord and tenant and in support the case of Luxmi Singhandia v. Rani Debi Lohia & Anr., I (1992) CPJ 293 (NC), decided by the Hon''ble National Commission was cited. The complaint was dismissed being outside the purview of Consumer Courts. We feel the aforesaid authority does not really help the respondent who has not filed even a reply controverting the claim. On perusal of the record, evidence adduced and arguments put forward by the learned Counsel for the appellant during the proceedings, this Commission is of the view that the case of complainant is well-covered under the Consumer Protection Act. The appellant - Corporation was participating in the exhibition and conference as a ''Partner State'' and this kind of participation cannot be termed to be the relationship of landlord and tenant. The change of period from Ist-10th January, 1993 to 18th - 28th March, 1993 and the change of venue from Hyderabad to New Delhi was made unilaterally. On behalf of the appellant it has been stressed that the complainant never agreed to change of venue and change of date and this was specifically intimated vide their letter No. PSIEC:Exp:25737 dated 15.10.1992. On behalf of the appellant it has been pointed out that the Punjab State has already sufficient regular arrangement of its own for exhibition and sale at New Delhi and their participation only at a place like Hyderabad was considered in the overall interest of Punjab State. The respondents were to render service for participation of the complainant and not that the complainant became a tenant under the respondents and that dispute could be tried by a Rent Controller at Hyderabad. It shall be useful to refer to a letter dated 13.11.1992 from the respondents addressed to the complainant and it is reproduced as under : "WORLD TRADE FAIR International Exhibition and Conference on Foreign Collaborations, Industrial and Business Opportunities WTF/HYD/92/4297 13th November, 1992 Mr. R.K. Sharma Manager (Exports) Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd., Udyog Bhawan, Sector 17, P.B. No. 11, Chandigarh-160 017 Dear Sir, Thank you for your letter dated 30.10.1992. As already informed to you, we have already agreed to refund the amount paid by you though as per our rules we were to give you the opportunity to participate in the event at the new dates. We request you to kindly bear with us since our accounts are undergoing a special audit at this point of time. We will, therefore, be refunding the entire amount to you during December, 1992. Thanking you in the meanwhile. Yours sincerely, Sd/- G. Krishna Moorthy General Manager" There is another letter dated 23.1.1993 addressed to the complainant, Annexure P-11 and it is reproduced as under : "WORLD TRADE FAIR International Exhibition and Conference on Foreign Collaborations, Industrial and Business Opportunities WTF/HYD/93/4931 23rd January, 1993 Mr. R.K. Sharma Manager, Exports Punjab Small Industries and Export Corpn. Ltd., Himalaya Marg Udyog Bhawan Sector 17A, Chandigarh 160 017. Dear Sir, Thank you for your telex dated 19.1.1993. We wish to inform you that we will be refunding the amount paid by you in due course. Thanking you and with regards,. Yours sincerely, Sd/- A.S. Bose Chief Convenor" The promise of refund was reiterated in another letter dated 23.2.1993, Annexure P-12 and thus the liability to refund was admitted and is well established. It is only on failure of the respondent to refund, the complainant was compelled to institute the complaint now under consideration. In view of the reasons and details given above the appeal succeeds and we hereby set-aside the impugned judgment and order that the respondent shall refund the sum of Rs. 41,500/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 11.1.1993 till realisation. Besides this the respondents are also liable to pay expenses of Rs. 4,160 incurred by the complainant towards the publication charges and cost of litigation Rs. 2,000/-. Appeal allowed with costs.