Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Basudeva Panigrahi
VISVA BHARATI - Appellant
Versus
RAKHI DEBNATH - Respondent
C. O. 2294 (W) Of 1993
Decided On : 07/04/1995
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - JURISDICTION - EDUCATION - WHETHER DISPUTE REGARDING APPROVAL OF CASSETTES OF RABINDRA SANGIT FALLS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - WHETHER EDUCATION COMES WITHIN THE MEANING OF SERVICE - WHETHER RESPONDENT NO. 1 CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A CONSUMER - WHETHER WRIT PETITION IS MAINTAINABLE WHEN ALTERNATIVE REMEDY IS AVAILABLE UNDER THE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, Visva Bharati, is a registered society engaged in promoting education and preserving the musical legacy of Rabindra Nath Tagore. The respondent no. 2, a publisher, sought permission from the petitioner to record and publish a cassette of Rabindra Sangit sung by the respondent no. 1. The petitioner asked the respondent no. 2 to submit the cassettes for approval along with a fee of Rs. 120/-. The petitioner examined the cassettes and found certain mistakes in intonation and notation. The respondent no. 2 was asked to re-record the songs and submit them again. However, before the petitioner could give final approval, the respondent no. 1 filed a consumer dispute alleging deficiency in service and seeking compensation of Rs. 70,000/-. The District Consumer Redressal Forum allowed the complaint and directed the petitioner to issue a certificate of fitness and pay compensation of Rs. 15,000/-.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the dispute between the parties did not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The court observed that education is not a service and a student cannot be equated with a consumer. The court further held that the respondent no. 1 could not be considered as a consumer under the Act since she had not purchased the cassettes for resale or commercial purposes. The court also held that the writ petition was not maintainable since the petitioner had an alternative remedy of appeal under the Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the dispute regarding approval of cassettes of Rabindra Sangit falls within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act? 2. Whether education comes within the meaning of service? 3. Whether the respondent no. 1 can be considered as a consumer under the Act? 4. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when an alternative remedy is available under the Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a beneficial legislation enacted to provide speedy relief to consumers. However, the Act does not apply to all disputes. The dispute between the parties in the present case does not fall within the purview of the Act since education is not a service and the respondent no. 1 cannot be considered as a consumer. 2. Education is not a service within the meaning of the Act. A student cannot be equated with a consumer. 3. The respondent no. 1 cannot be considered as a consumer under the Act since she had not purchased the cassettes for resale or commercial purposes. 4. The writ petition is not maintainable since the petitioner has an alternative remedy of appeal under the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS writ petition is directed against an Order dated 2. 9. 93 passed in CDF Case No. 1654 of 1993 by the Calcutta District Consumer Redressal Form, Alipore asking the petitioners for issuance of certificate of fitness on the cassettes deposited by the respondent no. 2 after observing necessary formalities and to pay compensasion of Rs. 15,000/ -. The petitioner no. 1 is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 whose primary function is to espouse and spread the cause of education in the country. Prior to 11. 9. 93 the Visva Bharati (Society) Music Board was engaged itself to preserve, protect and improvise the musical legendary work of Rabindra Nath Tagore. But by virtu of the amendment of the Visva Bharati Act, 1951, Visva Bharatl Music Board was amalgamated with the 'visva Bharati' and all properties including assets, rights and liabilities became vested in the petitioner no. 1. The petitioner no. 2 who is a Joint Director (Sales) looking after the Granthana Vibhaga of the Visava Bharati. The copyright in the Musical works of Rabindra Nath Tagore has vested with the petitioners. The respondent no. 2 who claims a registered publisher for production of audio cassette communicated in a letter to the petitioners that she desired to publish a cassette of Rabindra Sangit (songs) sung by respondent No. 1 and wanted to obtain certificate of fitness from V. B. S. B. Authority. Pursuant to the said letter the petitioner no. 2 asked the respondent no. 1 through the letter dated 11. 11. 92 to send the cassette in duplicate containing 12 selected songs of Rabindra Nath Tagore along with Rs. 120/- for the purpose of tune examination fee. The text of the letter sent by petitioner no. 2 is quoted hereunder :-"re: Permission for recording Rabindranath Tagore's songs. This has reference to your letter dated 9. 11. 92. You have our permission to record 12 songs, as per list submitted by you, on the following terms and conditions : (1)you will pay an advance royalty of 5% on printed price of the cassette. (2)the following payment of royalty is to be made within the following year, i. e. on the month of April along with a statement of sale. (3)you will also be required to send us cassette in duplicate containing the above songs for our approval before it is marketed along with approval fee of Rs. 120/- for cassette. (4)the label design of the cassette should inscribe the words Approved by the Visya Bharati Music Board or Visya Bharati Sangeet Samiti Anumodita. (5)you will have to send us 12 complimentary copies of the cassette. You are requested to send us the cassettes containing the above songs for our approval. Thanking you,". The respondent no. 2 as per the instruction of V. B. S. B. paid Rs. 120/- along with it submitted two identical cassettes (each containing the said 12 songs) through the letter dated 23. 11. 92. After examining those songs the petitioner no. 2 communicated through the letter dated 28. 12. 92 to the respondent no. 2 asking her to re-take the songs and thereafter send the same to the Board for approval. The cassettes were carefully examined by an expert member Sri Subhas Choudhury who made certain remarks on the cassettes allegedly showing certain mistakes in intonation an also notations of "swarabitan". It was further indicated that the cassettes contained several mistakes in pronunciation, voices throbbing expression and disrupted voice. The respondent no. 2 in her letter dated 23. 2. 93 addressed to the petitioner no. 2 however, emphasised that there were no mistakes in the recitation by the respondent no. 1. The words "rini Rini" were allegedly uttered in place of "rune Rune". The respondent no. 2 however, sent two 're-taken' cassettes of the said 12 songs together with a fees of Rs. 120/- towards tune examination. After receipt of those cassettes the petitioners claimed to have placed before the Board for giving final approval which awaits result and no immediate action
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
