The Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation vs Aakanshi Satellite Programmers, , M/s. Cable Net Service and Shri Anurag Khanna

TWO identical complaints, on the same issue, were filed by the Rajasthan Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as RTDC) before the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. As the issues and the parties involved were the same, they were disposed of by a common order of 23.10.2007. The RTDC has now filed a single appeal in both the matters against dismissal of the complaint by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The facts in brief are that in 1998, OP -1 had submitted a proposal to the Complainant offering to provide cable T.V. connections to Hotel Gangaur of the RTDC. The proposal was accepted and the service was provided continuously till 25.7.2002. Thereafter, OP -1 informed through a letter that it would not be able to continue the cable T.V. service beyond 30.8.2002, for certain technical reasons. It was also informed that further service could be provided by OP -2. Apparently, the rate demanded by the OP -2 was higher than the existing rate and therefore not accepted. The cable TV service was eventually discontinued by OP -1. Considering it to be a deficiency of service, the RTDC filed the consumer complaints. The Complainant claimed total compensation of Rs. 26.90 lakhs from the OPs.

PER contra, the case of OP -1 was that there was no agreement or commitment to continue the service at the originally agreed rate without any time frame. The terms and conditions offered at the commencement of the service were agreed and it was not the case of the Complainant that they were not agreed. Overtime, the business of OP -1 was taken over by OP -2 and therefore, the service could not have been continued by OP -1. The original agreement between the parties was for a period of one year from August 1998 and had thereafter been continued from year to year. The State Commission has held that the contract between the Complainant and OP -1 was in the nature of an annual contract which was continued. OP -1 had informed the Complainant on 25.7.2002 itself that it would be concluded on 30.8.2002. Therefore, there was no deficiency of service on the part of OP -1. The Commission also held that in so far OP -2 was considered, no contract existed between the Complainant and OP -2. Therefore, the question of deficiency of service did not arise at all. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed against both, OP -1 as well as OP -2.

WE have carefully perused the record and heard the two counsels. Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma, Advocate was heard on behalf of the Appellant RTDC and Mr. Alankar Khanna and Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocates for the Respondents.

DURING the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the Appellant agreed that there was no privity of contract between the appellant -RTDC and OP -2. Counsel for the respondent forcefully argued that there is nothing in the records to show that OP -1 was under any contractual obligation to continue the service indefinitely. As a matter of fact, the document relied upon by the Complainant clearly shows that the arrangement began as annual contract in August 1998 and ended in August, 2002. It needs to be noted here that in the pleadings before the State Commission, the contention in para 3 of the complaint that the arrangement of 1998 was without any time frame was challenged in the written response of OP -1 in the following terms: - That annexure -1 is self explanatory and it is totally false that any offer was ever given by Respondent No. 1 vide annexure -1 to provide cable connections to the corporation at the rate of Rs. 2,700/ - per month without any time frame for all times of come nor any such thing was ever negotiated or accepted by the Respondent No. 1.

The appellant, as already noted, has not been able to produce any evidence that it was meant to be an open ended contract to continue to provide cable T.V. service at Rs. 2700/ - per month for all times. The State Commission has referred to proposal of OP -1 in their letter of 1.8.1998 to the Manager Hotel Gangaur RTDC, Jaipur. A perusal of this letter shows that it provided for enhancement of charges on the basis of imposition of new taxes by the government. It also provided for annual enhancement in monthly rental. It is therefore, clear that it was in the nature of an agreement which was open to renewal from year to year. Therefore, the terms of renewal of such an agreement would, by its very nature, need to be agreed by both sides. It cannot be automatic continuation at unilateral demand or discretion of either party. We therefore, agree with the State Commission that no case of deficiency of service has been made out against OP -1 and OP -3. We also agree that there was no privity of contract between the Complainant/RTDC and OP -2. Consequently, no case is made out against any of the OPs. In our view, the decision of the State Commission is based on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. We therefore find no merits in this appeal. It is dismissed for the same reason with no order as to costs.