- (1.) THE complainant's case in short is that the complainant is doing Gold Covering ornaments under the name and style of M/s. Raajes Kalyani Covering. For promoting his business, he wanted to make advertisements and accordingly placed an order for advertisement through the 3rd opposite party with the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. He deposited the necessary amount and also the advertisement was broadcasted only on 1.7.1997 and 2.7.1997. Thereafter, it was not broadcasted. When the complainant questioned the opposite parties, they stated that Kalyani Covering have filed a suit before the High Court. But, the suit filed by the Kalyani Covering was dsimissed by the High Court. The complainant has also filed a C.R.P. No. 2415/1997 in which he has obtained an interim injunction restraining Kalyani Covering from interfering with his business. All these facts are brought to the notice of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 but simply they have refused to further broadcast and thus it amounts to deficiency in service.
(2.) THE opposite parties in their version contended that it is true that the complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite parties for broadcast of their products for a period of one month from 1.7.1997 to 31.7.1997. The broadcast was done on 1.7.1997 and 2.7.1997. While so, they recevied a letter on 2.7.1997 requesting them to stop the broadcast stating that Kalyani Covering who is the original registered trade mark owner has moved the High Court and has obtained an order and, therefore, requested the opposite Parties not to broadcast. The opposite parties while stopping the broadcast also took into consideration the code of ethics for advertisement prevailing in India as issued by the Advertisement Standards Council of India. The opposite parties also received a legal notice from one M.V. Venkatesan, on behalf of Raajes Kalyani Covering. In the Court cases between M/s. Raajes Kalyani Covering and M/s. Kalyani Covering, the opposite party is not a party. The opposite party has not received any payment directly from Raajes Kalyani Covering. The reasons for stopping the broadcast were conveyed to the advertising agency. The broadcasting was stopped in line with the guidelines governing the advertisements. Hence, the opposite parties pray that the complaint be dismissed with cost.
(3.) THE only point for determination is whether there is deficiency in service or not and if so whether the opposite parties are liable to compensate the complainant? Point : The first objection raised is that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. This objection is untenable. The opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 only acted through agents appointed by them. They have panel of agents only through whom they negotiate and accept advertisements. If any person wants to book a site or make advertisements of their product, they have to approach through their agents and fix their terms and conditions and pay the amount through the agents. In that manner, the complainant has approached the 3rd opposite party and has arranged for braoadcast of an advertisement of their product for a period of one month from 1.7.1997 to 31.7.1997. A sum of Rs. 1,530/ - was paid as commission to the 3rd opposite party and a sum of Rs. 8,670/ - was deposited as charges due and payable to the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 as advertisement charges. Hence, this contention that there is no privity of contract between the complainant and the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is without any merit.;