AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS is a complaint under Sec. 12 read with Sec. 17(a)(1) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 ("the Act" herein) filed by Radhey Shyam Sodani (Complainant) against, (1) Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Jaipur (RTDC); (2) Manager, Lake Tourist Village, Jamwa Ramgarh, Jaipur; and (3) Secretary, Rajasthan Tourism, Secretariat, Jaipur, on 6.11.1990 for award of Rs. 9,90,000. Briefly put the facts as stated in the complaint are these : -
THE complainant is a citizen of India and proprietor of Anita Films International, Bombay. THE complainant decided to produce a film to be named LAKHA. This film was based on the life of a famous Rajasthani legendary hero of the Banjara community called LAKHA, who was famous for his bravery, benevolence and philanthropy. Arun Govil, Shail Chadda, Pran, Kulbhushan Kharbanda and Sindhu Raj were engaged by the complainant as they are famous artists of the Indian screen. Shri Nawal Mathur of Jodhpur was engaged as Director to direct the film. THE complainant also engaged Shri Mohd. Bhai, who is said to be famous action director of Bombay. THE music of the film was composed by a team of music directors of Rajasthan viz. Jugal Kishore, Tilakraj and the Dance Director of the screen. Mr. Nagraj was the Art Director of the film. THE complainant decided to shoot the entire film in Jaipur District. THE artists numbering approximately 125 were to be brought from Bombay. THE complainant made arrangements for their stay at different hotels in Jaipur. THE complainant applied to opposite parties No. 1 & 2 for making available for his film unit the entire village complex known as Khelgaon Jheel Tourist Village, Jamwa Ramgarh comprising of nine rented rooms each having two beds. Initially the booking was from 3/11/1987 to 2/12/1987, but later on changed from 6/11/1987 to. 6/12/1987. Permission was also sought from the Chairman and Managing Director of the Rajasthan Tourism for setting up tents and certain other facilities. THE permission was granted by the Managing Director vide their letter dated 7.11.1987.125 persons inclusive of the two camera units came from Bombay for the shooting of the film. According to the complainant one unit comprised of 32 persons stayed in Youth Hostel, Jaipur, 30 Junior artists in Qureshi Musafirkhana and 30 in Chandra Mahal Hotel, Jaipur. THE hero, heroine and other senior directors stayed in Jai Mahal Hotel, Hotel Mansingh and Neelum Hotel. THE rest of 30 persons including camera men stayed in Khelgaon i.e. Jheel Tourist Village, Jamwa Ramgarh with their cameras, reflectors, lightings, dresses and other materials which is managed and controlled by the opposite parties. Shootings of the film commenced on 6/11/1987 and Rs. 30,000.00 were deposited with opposite party No. 2 on different dates between 22/10/1987 to 24/11/1987 The shooting of the film was going on peacefully when all of a sudden opposite party No. 2 sent his armed guards on 29/11/1987 who physically stopped the artists and technicians from completing their work. They also forcibly seized cameras, exposed and unexposed films, Nagra lights and light reflectors, light materials, trucks and other vehicles valued about Rs. 50 lacs and further locked the gates of the village complex, thus restricting the movement of the complainant''s film unit. The members of the film unit according to the complainant were frightened and the were thrown out from the rooms occupied by them. The persons who stayed in the rooms of the Jheel gaon Village were not served with tea, breakfast etc. The complainant was informed at 9 a.m. at Neelum Hotel. He reached there at 11 a.m. and contacted opposite party No. 2. He was requested to continue with the film otherwise the whole shooting would be destroyed and ultimately he will be doomed. Opposite party No. 2 did not agree to his request and after the complainant contacted opposite party No. 1 at 2 p.m. and acquainted him of the high-handedness of his officers, opposite party No. 2 told him at that time that some cheques issued by him have been dishonoured by the Bank so he should make payment in cash. The complainant told him to produce those cheques but opposite party No. 2 did not give them. The complainant is said to have approached opposite party No. 1 who directed on phone to opposite party No. 2 to accept Rs. 25,000.00 and allow him to continue with the shooting of the film. The complainant accordingly paid Rs, 25,000.00 cash to opposite party No. 2. Despite this opposite party No. 2 did not permit him to continue shooting of the film and wasted his 2-3 hours. By that time opposite party No. 1 left his office and so he could not contact him again. Opposite party No. 2 was also directed by opposite party No. 1 that on depositing Rs. 25,000.00 he should provide all the facilities to the complainant to continue the shooting and entertain the persons staying there with tea and food etc. Opposite party No. 2 did not carry out the orders of opposite party No. 1 and continued to harass the complainant. The complainant was not allowed to continue the shooting of the film. Opposite party No. 1 Shri Aseem Chatterjee was again contacted and he was apprised with all the facts and high handedness of opposite party No. 2 and he told him that by not permitting to continue the shooting of the film, his whole life would be dommed and great injustice had been done to him. Opposite party No. 1 further asked him to deposit Rs. 50,000.00 as advance and promised him that he will permit to continue the shooting of the film for the next ten days. The complainant deposited Rs. 50,000.00 on 4/12/1987 and went to Village Jheel gaon. He found that the shooting materials were still under seizure by opposite party No. 2. The guard was also there. The rooms were locked and the material of the tent house was scattered here and there. Most of the material was not available. Unit persons staying there ran away from the backside of the hall on account of not getting food and water to drink. The owner of the tent house collected his materials which were found there and claimed huge compensation from the complainant about the missing material. According to the complainant the dispute between the tent house owner was settled at Rs. 2,25,000.00. The complainant requested the opposite party No. 2 to return the cameras costing Rs. 10 lakhs so that they may be handed over to the owner who had come from Bombay after hearing this news.
On 5/12/1987 the complainant contacted opposite party No. 1 and apprised him with the latest situation informing that opposite party No. 2 is not available at Jamwa Ramgarh, that all the materials and goods are in the rooms, opposite party No. 1 only released two'' cameras. The artists having met with this situation returned back to Bombay as the continuation of the shooting of the film was not possible. The amount of Rs. 50,000.00 which the complainant had deposited was to be returned. He asked that entire bills may be prepared so that he may make the payment, opposite party No. 1 tried to contact opposite party No. 2 on phone, but at Jamwa Ramgarh he was not available. So opposite party No. 1 directed the Manager of Gangore Hotel to prepare the entire bill of the complainant, opposite party No. 1 assured that as soon as the bills would be prepared, he will return the amount paid by him. The complainant has further alleged that on 6.12.1987 at night at 12''0 Clock the complainant was in Neelum Hotel, the employee of opposite party No. 2 came with the bill and handed over to him. That bill was prepared by opposite party No. 2 without any basis and that it was arbitrarily prepared. On account of high-handedness and the illegal action taken by opposite party No. 2, the complainant could not complete the shooting of the film, his artists went back to Bombay without completing the film and the complainant was put to great hardship, loss and mental agony. The case of the complainant is that on account of the high-handedness of opposite party No. 2 the complainant was put to a loss of Rs. 50,00,000.00. He prayed that the amount of Rs. 9,90,000 may be awarded as compensation by which he would complete the film and would be satisfied. The complainant has alleged that he filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court and that was dismissed. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court which was also dismissed.
THE opposite parties submitted the version of the case contesting the complaint on various grounds. THEy raised certain preliminary objections. It was submitted that the averments made in the complaint show that he has alleged mala fide intention of opposite party No. 2 threat to ruin his carrier, arbitrary preparation of the bills and use of force in detention of the goods and materials of the complainant. It was submitted that the complainant has purchased eatable goods for price to be paid and so it was for a commercial purpose. Regarding the negligence it was pleaded that there is no allegation of defect in the goods and there is no averment about negligence or deficiency in service. THEre was no loss or injury, suffered due to the negligence of the opposite parties and so the Commission should not entertain the complaint and no investigation can be done in the case beyond the scope of enquiry under Sec. 14 (1)(d) of the Act. A plea was taken that under the directions of the Rajasthan High Court, the complainant had deposited Rs. 35,000/- cash and submitted security for Rs. 30,754.20 of Shri Kailash Vyas. But the amount of security was not paid even after the dismissal of the writ petition. THE opposite parties served a notice on 25-6-1990 on Shri Kailash Vyas and subsequently filed a suit for the recovery of the amount against Shri Kailash Vyas and the complainant in the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur. THE complainant did not put any defence in the suit which is pending and filed the present complaint for compensation. It was submitted that this was a matter relating to settlement of accounts. THErefore, the State Commission should not investigate into the matter. An objection was taken that the complaint involves complicated and complex questions of facts which require recording of elaborate oral documentary evidence and a detailed scrutiny and assessment of such evidence will be necessary which cannot be conveniently done in a summary enquiry under the Act. It was submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as defined in Sec. 2(1) (d) of the Act. It was stated by the opposite parties that from 6th November to 28th November, 1987 the film unit rd no complaint and on 29.11.1987 it wasstated by the complainant that food was not supplied and armed guards physically stopped the artists and technicians from completing their work and also seized forcibly their equipments causing toss and damages. According to the opposite parties these allegations are not correct, but even if for the arguments sake these allegations are taken as correct, there is no allegation regarding deficiency in the service rendered but they relate to the use of force, coercive and other methods for obstructing the scheduled activities. THE actions of Shri Prithvi Raj Singh (opposite party No. 2) in any view of the matter does not constitute deficiency in service or negligence in the performance of service and in no case a complaint as defined under Sec. 2(1 )(c) of the Act is maintainable. On the allegations made by the complainant, according to the opposite parties no relief can be granted under Sec. 14 (1) of the Act. It was submitted that the services are to be rendered for consideration and it is an admitted fact that the cheques worth Rs. 55,000/-given by the complainant were bounced prior to 28.11.1987. THE consideration thus failed and when there was no consideration then there was no corresponding duty to render the services and consequently the complainant cannot raise any grievance before the State Commission. THE remedy, if any, the complainant had, it was for breach of contract and settlement of accounts, which was also the direction given by the High Court in the writ petition. THE Judgment of the High Court was upheld by the Supreme Court as Special Leave Petition was rejected and thus the State Commission cannot entertain such a dispute regarding the settlement of accounts. A civil suit against the complainant is pending in a Civil Court and, therefore, the complaint cannot be proceeded with. THE relief which the complainant has prayed are beyond the powers of a Redressal Forum to grant. Paper cutting of the Navjoti dated 5.12.1987 reveals that the complainant had no money and, therefore, he had to face the problem. The complainant submitted a rejoinder to the reply of the opposite parties. In the rejoinder it was mentioned that the conduct of the opposite parties is covered as services rendered suffered from deficiency as defined in Section 2(1)(g) of the Act and if there is deficient service which is due to the negligence of the opposite parties, compensation can be awarded. It stated that the action of the opposite parties was arbitrary and violative of their fundamental rights to carry on trade. The High Court had only observed that the matter could be raised by filing a Civil Suit, but it has not held that the jurisdiction of the State Commission is barred. The decision of the High Court and the Supreme Court cannot be construed that the Redressal Forum under the Act has no jurisdiction to entertain the dispute. By not providing proper and uninterrupted services to the entire satisfaction of the complainant, the opposite parties have made themselves liable for damages. With reference to the averments made in the writ petition, it was submitted that the officers of the opposite parties were directed by the Hon''ble Judges of the Rajasthan High Court to release the goods confiscated by them, after deposite of Rs. 35,000.00. It was stated that the opposite parties have admitted that only an amount of Rs. 65,720.00 remained outstanding against the complainant till 6.12.1987, out of which Rs. 35,000.00 were paid at the time of the interim order passed by the Hon''ble High Court and for the remaining amount of Rs. 30,000.00 solvent security was furnished by the complainant. In these circumstances making mention of the bounced cheques is absolutely irrelevant. The Complainant submitted affidavits of : (1) Shri Radhey Shyam Sodani (2) Shri Govind Narain Goyal (3) Shri Vasudeo Bhatt (4) Shri Hari Chandra Roy (5) Shri Baba Harnam (6) Shri Prakash Agarwal (7) Shri Rakesh Kankaria and (8) Shri Kunwar Singh
PHOTOSTAT copies of Annxs. 1 to 12 were submitted with the affidavit of Shri Radhey Shyam Sodani. On behalf of the opposite parties, affidavits of Shri Himmat Singh, Shri N.L. Sharma and Shri Prithvi Raj Singh were submitted. With the affidavit of Shri Prithvi Raj Singh photostat copies of documents marked Annexure 1 to Annex. 35 were submitted. Two applications were submitted on behalf of the opposite parties on 27.11.1992. In the first application it was prayed that the opposite parties will be in a position to reply to the documents submitted with the written arguments of the complainant after the application dated 17.6.1991 is considered and permission for filing such documents is granted by the State Commission. On this application it was ordered that permission for filing such documents is not accorded. The documents submitted with the written arguments of the complainant will neither be taken note of nor considered for the disposal of the complaint filed by the complainant. The second application was for permission that the deponents of the complainant may be called for cross-examination. By our order dated 27.11.1992 permission to cross-examine the deponents of the affidavits was refused. A revision was filed and with certain observations, it was dismissed.
THE complainant submitted written arguments and the opposite parties have also submitted reply to the written arguments. We have duly considered the pleadings of the parties, the documents submitted during trial of the complaint and the affidavits produced by the parties. THE written arguments by both the parties were also considered.
BY our order dated 21.10.1991 we recorded that the question relating to the maintainability of the complaint shall be decided after notice to the opposite parties. Now we propose to decide whether the facts that have come on record the complaint filed by the complainant is maintainable or not. Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties has specifically taken an objection in the written statement that the complainant has filed this complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and from the perusal of Paras 8,10,11,12,13 and 18 of the complaint it is clear that the complainant has alleged mala fide intention, threat to ruin the complainant''s carrier, arbitrary preparation of bills, mala fide intention, use of force in detention of goods and compensation for loss. In the written arguments that were submitted by the opposite parties it was stated that the High Court in the writ petition observed that the complainant may pursue his remedy in a Civil Court. We may state that the complainant in Para 8 of the complaint has stated facts regarding the mala fide intention of opposite party No. 2. In Para 10 of the complainant has stated facts about threat to the complainant. The words used in Para 10 are ...[Text in Hindi Omitted]... In Para 11, the complainant has alleged that the bills were prepared at the instance of opposite party No 2 in an arbitrary manner ...[Text in Hindi Omitted]... A perusal of Para 12 of the complaint shows that the goods that were consfiscated were not returned and only two cameras were returned and rest of the goods were not returned. In Para 18 compensation for loss has been claimed. From the allegations made in the complaint that from 6.11.1987 to 28.11.1987 it is clear that the film unit had no complaint. It was on 29.11.1987 food was not supplied and armed guards physically stopped the artists and technicians from completing their work and also seized forcibly their equipments causing them considerable damages. These averments regarding force, adopting of coercive methods in performing the duties do not constitute deficiency in service or negligence in the performance of services. Considering the fact that the allegations made by the complainant have been challenged on facts by the opposite parties, we are of the view that the complicated issues involved in this complaint cannot be satisfactorily adjudicated in the proceedings under the Act. Reference may be made to (II (1992) CPJ 551, I (1991) CPJ 78 (NC), as explained in II (1991) CPJ 202 (NC),). The questions relating to use of force, coercion, threat, arbitrariness etc. cannot be determined in a summary enquiry under the Act. After considering the complaint, the documents submitted by the complainant and the averments made in the version of the case we are of opinion that the questions involved in the complaint are complicated and complex and they cannot conveniently be determined in a summary enquiry under the Act. Even otherwise the enquiry into the mala fide intention coercion use of force, threat etc. is not envisaged by the Act and these questions can be better determined in a Civil Suit and when such is the case, it is settled that the Redressal Forum should not adjudicate such a complaint. There is another aspect of the matter. The complainant in Paras 13,14,15,16 and 17 of the complaint has stated that on account of undesirable activity of the opposite parties the complainant having been harassed filed Writ Petition No. 3308/87 before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur. That writ petition was dismissed on 1.11.1988. Before that, however, an order was passed on 17/12/1987 that the articles of the complainant may be returned. A review application was filed by the complainant which was also rejected on 14/12/1988. A Special Leave Petition was filed before the Supreme Court against the orders dated 1/11/1988 and 14/12/1988 which was also dismissed on 16/12/1988. The complainant has clearly stated in the complaint that he is submitting the copies of the writ petition and orders dated 17/12/1987, 1/11/1988, 14/12/1988 and 16/12/1989 with the complaint. But they have not been submitted so far. The opposite parties in the version of the case stated that the complainant filed the writ petition for verification of accounts and demanded Rs. 10 lacs by way of compensation and the High Court dismissed the writ petition and directed that no interference can be done under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and further the complainant was directed to take appropriate action of filing a suit for settlement of accounts, if he so desired. The complainant preferred a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court, which was also dismissed in limine. It has further stated that in pursuance of the directions of the Rajasthan High Court on 17.12.1987 on an interim application for stay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- was deposited and a security for Rs. 30,754.20 of Shri Kailash Vyas, an employee of the Government Advocate Office was submitted by the complainant. The amount of security was not paid after the dismissal of the writ petition and, therefore, the opposite parties served a notice on 25.6.1990 on Shri Kailash Vyas and subsequently filed a suit for recovery of amount against Shri Kailash Vyas and the complainant Shri R.S. Sodani in the court of District & Sessions Judge, Jaipur. That suit is pending. Thereafter the complainant has filed this complaint for compensation. According to the opposite parties in view of the dismissal of the writ petition and pendency of suit before the District Judge wherein the complainant is also a party and the claim is for the settlement of the accounts etc.,the complaint cannot be adjudicated upon for it is a matter relating to settlement of accounts between the parties rather than for compensation. In the written arguments that were submitted on behalf of the complainant it was stated that the complainant had filed a writ petition before the High Court which was dismissed and it was observed that for rendition of account, the complainant should move the proper Civil Court. But the High Court while dismissing the writ petition did not observe or give any decision that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as such. According to the complainant, he has not complained about the rendition of account. He has merely brought to the notice of the State Commission about the malafide intention, harassment to the complainant and his main charge is about mis-behaviour of opposite party No. 2 on account of which shooting of the film LAKHA was not completed which resulted in loss of lakhs of rupees. For the acts of commission and omission of the opposite parties, the complainant has demanded a compensation. The complainant has chosen the remedy of the writ petition in the High Court & also claimed compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs against the opposite parties. The dismissal of the writ petition was upheld by the Supreme Court. The dismissal of the writ petition by the High Court was based on the ground that the complainant may pursue his remedy in a Civil Court. It is not that the complaint is not in respect of the rendition of the accounts but the question of accounts will arise for holding an enquiry in regard to the service which was to be rendered by the opposite parties. A suit has been instituted by the opposite parties against the surety and the complainant. In that suit also some of the questions involved in the complaint will be determined.
We are, therefore, of opinion that this is not a case of inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance in service which has been contracted to perform for consideration. Further the writ petition which was filed by the complainant was dismissed by the High Court observing that he may file a Civil Suit for rendition of accounts. It should not also be lost sight of that the complainant claimed Rs. 2.10 lacs as compensation in the writ petition. For all these reasons we are of opinion that the complainant may seek redress in a Civil Court, if so chooses and is so advised. In view of this, it is not necessary for us to go into the merits of the complaint. The complaint is, therefore, dismissed on the limited grounds stated above. In the circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Complaint dismissed.