VISVA BHARATI Vs. RAKHI DEBNATH

JUDGEMENT

(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 :-

(2.) The respondent no. 1 who was, eventually, the complainant before the District Consumer Redressal Forum without awaiting the results of the Board hurriedly filed a consumer dispute. It is claimed by the petitioner no. 1 that the Visva Bharati Authority had not been impleaded as a party before the District consumers Redresal Forum but the complainant somehow to take an order only impleaded respondent no. 1 giving improper description of the petitioner no.2. Though the petitioner no. 2 filed a showcause before the District Forum but the latter without properly considering the same passed the impugned order.

(3.) The respondent no. 1 inter alia, challenged the arbitrary, whimsical and complacent attitude of the petitioners before the Consumers' Redressal Forum claiming Rs. 70,000/- as compensation. It is further stated that the petitioner no. 2 being a statutory body, it was not expected of them to behave in such a slip-shod manner. It is claimed that the Consumer Forum after a careful consideration of her claim awarded damage Rs. 15,000/- as compensation, over and above the direction to the petitioners for issuing proper fitness certificate within 10 days after observance of necessary formalities.