IMPRESSIONS vs M.S.PAWAR

BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that Mr. M.S. Pawar, Director of M/s. Ambitious Polychem Pvt. Ltd. placed an order for designing a logo for a common seal of the Company on 25.6.93 and paid Rs. 300/- to the opposite party by cheque. According to the complainant, the design was to be made available within a fort- night. The opposite party failed to do the needful. What is more, they refused to return the amount and misbehaved with the complainant when he asked for the refund of the same. The complainant filed the complaint giving rise to this appeal on 16.9.93 asking for refund of Rs. 300/- and damages amounting to Rs. 25,000/-. Notice of the complaint was issued by registered post to the opp. party. There was a report of refusal. The service was held adequate and the opp. party was proceeded ex-parte. District Forum-II allowed the complaint by order dated 24.3.95 and directed refund of Rs. 300/- and compensation amounting to Rs. 1,000/-. Aggrieved by the order, the opposite party has preferred this appeal.

THE ground taken in the appeal was that no valid service was effected on the appellant; that the complainant was not a consumer; that the complainant neither alleged nor proved any loss suffered by him; and the order for the payment of Rs. 1,000/- as compensation was without any basis. It was further stated that M/s. Impressions is a sole proprietary concern of the sister of Mr. Sanjay Sahney through whom the said firm had been impleaded before the District Forum. THE present appeal has been filed by the said proprietor through her father Mr. R.K. Sahney. In fact, according to the appellant, Sanjay Sahney had nothing to do with the opposite party. Further case of the appellant was that, in fact, an order for preparing a design was placed on the opposite party. THE said design, alongwith bill for Rs. 300/-, was delivered to the complainant on 26.3.93 and cheque for Rs. 300/- dated 26.6.93 was received on that date. After about a fortnight, the complainant came and wanted some alterations to be made in the design in which he agreed to pay additional charges of Rs. 150/-. THE design, as altered, alongwith a bill for Rs. 150/- was produced before the complainant on 17.7.93. THE complainant wanted to take the altered design without making the additional payment of Rs. 150/-. This led to some alteration. THE opposite party sent a reminder regarding the said payment of Rs. 150/- by its letter dated 14.9.93 and followed up the same by another similar letter on 27.9.93 but to no purpose. It was in these facts and circumstances that the complainant approached District Forum-II. Reply on behalf of the complainant-respondent in the appeal, has been filed. We have heard Mr. R.K. Sahney and Mr. M.S. Pawar and have carefully gone through the records.

It needs no elaborate argument to state that report of refusal only raises a rebuttal presumption of service. The categorical case of the opposite party was that it was never served with any notice. The complainant has not led evidence to show that the registered letter was, in fact, tendered to the proprietor of the opposite party and the same was refused by her. In the absence of such evidence and the categorical plea of the opposite party, the presumption of service stands rebutted and it is, therefore, held that there was no service as far as the opposite party is concerned.

A perusal of the material on record un- mistakably shows that the version of the appellant deserves to be accepted in preference to that of the respondent. The complainant did not disclose all the material facts in the complaint namely that a design was prepared and furnished to him by the opposite party; that the desing did not meet his requirement and he wanted the design to be prepared again with some alterations and that he agreed to pay an additional fee of Rs. 150/- and when the altered design was produced, he declined to pay the additional charges which led to some unpleasant incident. These facts stand admitted in reply to the appeal preferred before us. These additional facts changed the complexion of the whole case. What is even more significant is the fact that the facts pleaded by the appellant in the appeal, stand clearly supported by two reminders dated 14.9.93 and 27.9.93 which were not replied to by the complainant. At the time of hearing Mr. Pawar stated that he is a technical person and the design prepared by the opp. party was found to be defective as on the basis thereof male and female components for preparing a common seal for the Company was not technically feasible. Mr. Pawar showed us the embossed impression of the common seal which he ultimately got prepared from another person at a much lower price. Mr. Pawar also contended that he never agreed to pay additional charges of Rs. 150/-. We do not find force in the contention of Mr. Pawar for the simple reason that the order placed with the opposite party was clearly for designing of logo and not a common seal with male and female parts thereof for purposes of embossing me seal on a paper. If after seeing the design on 26.6.93, he was not satisfied and he never agreed to pay additional fee of Rs. 150/-, he could easily stop payment of the cheque of Rs. 300/- paid a day earlier. His failure to stop the payment only shows that there was no dispute between the parties on or about 26.6.93, when the complainant wanted some alterations to be made and the opposite party agreed to do so. This unfortunate dispute and litigation could be easily avoided if the complainant had made the payment of Rs. 150/-as agreed to by him. It is entirely irrelevant that another concern known as M/s. Prince Arts, prepared the logo design for half the price namely instead of Rs. 300/- for Rs. 150/-. For the reasons mentioned above the appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside and as a result the complaint filed by the respondent stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs in the appeal. A copy of this order be furnished to the parties as well as D.F.-II. Appeal allowed.