R.L.BATRA vs P.MUDGAL SWAMI

THIS order will dispose of two appeals bearing No. A-103/90 & A-107/90 as the facts and law points'' involved in these appeals are not only identical but even the contesting parties are same.

BRIEF facts of the case are that one Shri H.S. Sehgal, who is respondent in both the appeals and was the complainant before the District Forum had gone to London alongwith his wife Mrs. Shakuntla Sehgal as delegates to the World Hindu Conference from 23rd August to 6th September, 1989. He was asked to deposit Rs. 19,000/- per head on account of expenses to cover European tour which included board and lodging. The said amount was purportedly paid through cross cheques drawn on Punjab National Bank. The party left Delhi by Aeroflot flight No. SU-554 & SU-553 alongwith Dr. R.L. Batra, who is the appellant in case No. A-103/90 and who happened to be the Chairman of Aryawrat Zone (World Hindu Federation). On arrival at London on 24.8.89, it was found that no proper arrangement for board and lodging had been made and as a result, respondent Mr. H.S. Sehgal had to make his own arrangements. He was told that their Visa for further tour of the European countries also could not be arranged. A meeting was held at Shri Ram Mandir, South Hall, Loudon on 28th August, 1989, wherein it was decided that refund on account of cancellation of further tour shall be made to the individual members. Respondent Shri H.S. Sehgal, after obtaining a letter from both the appellants, in which a direction was given by them to the Bank to refund the amount, presented the same to the Bank but the same was received back with the objection "Refer to Drawer Thereafter Shri H.S. Sehgal, complainant before the District Forum made efforts to contact Dr. R.L. Batra as well as Shri P. Mudgal Swami, the two appellants in appeal Nos. 103/90 & 107/90 respectively but he found their response evasive. Shri Sehgal had claimed back the due amount of Rs. 18,500/- .

The learned District Forum through the impugned order dated 26.6.90, directed the defendants Dr. R.L. Batra & Sh. P. Mudgal Swami, who are the appellants before this Commission to pay Rs. 18,500/- to Shri Sehgal with interest @ 15% per annum from 12.10.89 till the date of payment.

THE appeal of Dr. R.L. Batra has been numbered as A-103/90 and that of Shri P. Mudgal Swami as A-107/90. Both the appellants in their separate appeal cases have not denied the basic facts of the case. Shri P. Mudgal Swami in his appeal No. 107/90 has raised preliminary objection that the District Forum had no jurisdiction in the matter on the ground that it was not the case of Shri Sehgal that he had paid any consideration for the services for availing the said tour and as such Shri Sehgal was not a consumer as defined under Section 2(i)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Dr. R.L. Batra, appellant in case No. 103/90 has not raised any such legal point but has merely thrown burden on the other appellant Shri P. Mudgal Swami who had committed various irregularities in maintaining the proper accounts and in his prayer he has advocated, that responsibility for the payment of decreed amount be fixed on Sh. P. Mudgal Swami, appellant in case No. 107/90. We have gone through the records and heard the parties at length. As has been discussed above, none of the parties had challenged the payment made by Shri Sehgal for the said tour. Other broad facts about the non-arrangement of Visa to various European countries as well as board and lodging etc. have also not been denied by any of the parties involved in the dispute. With regard to the preliminary objection raised by Shri P. Mudgal Swami, appellant in appeal No. A-107/90 that the complainant/respondent Shri Sehgal was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, as he had not paid any consideration to the appellant. It was contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent Sh. Sehgal that the payment for arranging the travel was received by both the appellants and in token thereof they had issued receipts dated 10.8.89 bearing No. 262 & 263. It was further pleaded on behalf of Shri Sehgal that on both these receipts the signatures of the appellants were affixed. During the course of arguments, our attention was further drawn towards a number of such receipts bearing serial No. 217 to 224 & 243 to 283 which were signed by both the appellants. We have examined the plea raised by Sh. P. Mudgal Swami in the light of these unrebulted documents on record which make the position amply clear that both the appellants had played a direct role and collected consideration for arranging the said tour from various persons including Shri Sehgal, the respondent. As such the preliminary objection raised by Sh. P. Mudgal Swami that the plaint was not covered within the ambit of COPRA was devoid of merits and stands rejected.

WE have further gone through a copy of Resolution dated the 28th August, 1989, which was passed in the meeting held at Shri Ram Mandir, South Hall, London. In this resolution regrets were offered for not making the proper arrangements for the delegates and it was also resolved that the amount which has now been claimed by Shri Sehgal should be paid to the relevant claimants. This document which has direct bearing on the pleadings made by both the parties is duly signed and bears the respective official seals of S/Shri R.L. Batra & P. Mudgal Swami. WE have also perused another important document dated 28.8.89 placed on the file of the District Forum where a list of 8 persons has been drawn indicating the amount to be refunded to the individuals who had gone on the said tour. This document is again bearing the official seals and signatures of both the appellants S/Sh. R.L. Batra & P. Mudgal Swami and name of Mrs. & Mr. Sehgal appears at serial No. 7 in this list where the claimed amount of Rs. 18,500/- also stands mentioned against their names. Dr. R.L. Batra, appellant in case No. 103/90 has not made any plea worth considering and has merely tried lo shift the burden on Sh. P. Mudgal Swami for not having maintained and submitted proper accounts etc. In the light of the above discussed facts and overwhelming documentary evidence on record, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that both the appellants have not come before the Commission with clean hands and there was no force in the prayer made by them. As such we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned District Forum and both the appeals bearing No. A-103/90 & A-107/90 stand rejected. No order as to costs. A copy of this order be placed on the corresponding appeal case for record. Appeals dismissed.