SHREEJI PRINTERS AHMEDABAD Vs. AKHIL BHARATIYA GRAHAK PANCHAYAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - These two appeals arise out of the judgment and order of the State Commission, Gujarat at Ahmedabad dated December 10, 1990 directing the opposite party before it to pay to the Complainant No. 2 a sum of Rs. 26,190/- with interest at 15 per cent from the date of complaint by way of compensation for the failure of opposite party to deliver to the Complainant No. 2, four hundred copies of a book which he had undertaken to print. First Appeal No. 8 of 1991 has been filed by M/s Shreeji Printers, the opposite party before the State Commission. First Appeal No. 27 of 1991 has been preferred by the Akhil Bharatiya Grahak Panchayat, which had figured as complainant No.1 before the State Commission claiming an enhancement of the rate of interest and contending also that the State Commission should have awarded costs to this appellant. The Complainant No.2 who is a medical practitioner (general surgeon) had written a book entitled "Ward Procedure". His case is that he had entrusted the opposite party M/s Shreeji Printers of Ahmedabad with the work of getting 2000 copies of the book printed within one month for a total consideration of Rs. 32,000/-. It is alleged in the complaint that under the terms of the contract delivery of the books was to be effected against payment and that the opposite party delivered only 1000 copies of the book to the complainant No. 2 and wrongfully withheld the delivery of the balance of 1000 copies of the book putting forward a demand for payment of an excess amount of Rs. 8,810/- over and above what had been originally agreed upon. The complainant has further averred in the complaint that he had, in fact, made a payment of Rs. 45,000/- to the printer and there had already been an excess payment to him of Rs. 13,000/-.Complaint No. 2 has alleged that the cost of each book when sold in the market was Rs. 100/- and the opposite party had deprived him of substantial financial benefits which he would have otherwise derived. It was claimed that the complainant was entitled to get a refund of the excessive amount of Rs. 13,000/- paid to the respondent. On the basis of these allegations the Complainant No. 2 prayed for the recovery from the opposite party of a total sum of Rs. 1,34,000/- on different heads-namely Rs. 1 lakh representing the cost of 1000 books by way of refund of the over payment Rs. 13,000/-, interest on the above at 18 per cent from April 1989-Rs. 18,000/-, legal fees and costs. The opposite party-M/s Shreeji Printers filed a detailed written statement before the State Commission wherein it was pleaded that the printing charges agreed upon was not Rs. 32,000/- as wrongly alleged in the complaint but was Rs. 58,810.25 and that the work of printing the books had been completed by the respondent within the stipulated time by working during day and night unmindful of the extra labour and cost involved. According to the opposite party it had delivered to the Complainant No. 2, 1400 books duly printed against which the Complainant No. 2 had paid only Rs. 45,000/- in cash. The said complainant had also additionally given him a cheque for Rs. 1000/- but that cheque was returned by the bank. In the circumstances the respondent pleaded that there was no default of any kind on its part since it had printed the books and had been ready to deliver them on payment of the balance amount required to make up the full consideration of Rs. 58,810.25. Accordingly to the respondent, the cost of the book in the market was only Rs. 50/- per copy and the allegation in the complaint that it was being sold at Rs. 100/- per copy was not true. The respondent strongly denied that any injury or loss had been caused to the Complainant No. 2 by reason of any default or deficiency on its part so as to render it liable to pay compensation to the Complainant No.2. It was the Complainant No. 2 alone who was responsible for the delay in getting delivery of the books since he was not prepared to pay the balance consideration in accordance with the agreement and he was putting forward a false plea that the total amount payable was only Rs. 32,000/-. The State Commission after discussing the evidence adduced before it came to the conclusion that the consideration actually agreed upon between the parties in executing the work of printing 2000 copies of the book was Rs. 58,810.25-as pleaded by the opposite party and not merely Rs. 32,000/- as alleged by the Complainant No. 2. After having reached the above finding, the State Commission went on to consider the question as to how many copies of the book had been actually delivered to the Complainant No. 2, whether it was only 1000 copies of the book as stated in the complaint or 1400 copies as pleaded in the written statement. The State Commission came to the conclusion that only 1000 copies of the book had really been delivered by the printer to Complainant No. 2. However, the State Commission has recorded that admittedly 600 more copies were delivered by the opposite party to the Complainant No. 2 at its suggestion and that the position which ultimately obtained was that only 400 copies remained undelivered. On the question as to the price at which the book was then sold in the market, the State Commission accepted the case put forward by the complainant No. 22 that the price per copy was Rs. 100/-. Having recorded its findings as aforesaid, the State Commission proceeded to hold that since the opposite party had failed to deliver 400 copies of the book, he was liable to pay damages to Complainant No. 2 calculated at Rs. 100/- per copy, aggregating to Rs. 40,000/-. From the said amount the State Commission directed that a sum of Rs. 13,810/- which remained payable to the printer by way of consideration should be deducted. In the result, the State Commission held that the Complainant No. 2 is entitled to recover Rs. 26,190/- from the opposite party (appellant in F.A. No. 8 of 1991) by way of damages for non-supply of 400 copies of the book. In addition, the Complainant No. 2 was also awarded interest at 15 per cent on the aforesaid amount from the date of filing of the complaint till the date of realisation and Rs. 500/- by way of costs. After giving our careful consideration to the matter in all its aspects we have come to the conclusion that the appeal filed by M/s Shreeji Printers (opposite party) has to succeed. The finding recorded by the State Commission that the contract entered into between the parties was for printing of 2000 copies of the book for a total consideration of Rs. 58,810.25 is fully supported by the evidence adduced in the case and it is hereby confirmed. From this finding it becomes clear that the second complainant had approached the State Commission with a totally false case that the amount payable by him to the opposite party by way of cost of paper and charges for printing, binding etc. was only Rs. 32000/-. This was also the stand that he took with the printer and it was as a result of the failure of the Complainant No. 2 to honour his obligation under the contract of payment of full consideration before taking delivery, that the balance copies were not delivered to him by the printer. There was no obligation on the part of the printer to deliver the remaining copies to Complainant No. 2 except on full payment being made to him by the later. Such being the correct position it is not possible for us to agree with the view expressed by the State Commission that the opposite party is liable to pay damages to Complainant No. 2 for default in delivering 400 copies of the book. The primary default or breach was on the part of the Complainant No. 2 himself and he cannot therefore legitithately complain that there was any default or deficiency on the part of the printer in the matter of delivery of the balance number of copies of the book. In view of what is stated above, it is unnecessary for us to go into the further question relating to the quantum of price at which the book was being sold in the market. The said question becomes relevant only in case the Complainant No. 2 is entitled in law to recover damages or compensation from the printer. It follows from the foregoing discussion that the State Commission was in error in directing the appellant-M/s Shreeji Printers to pay a sum of Rs. 26,190/- by way of compensation to Complainant No. 2 with interest at 15 per cent and costs. Since we have held that Complainant No. 2 who had approached the State Commission with a false case regarding the quantum of consideration which had been agreed upon between the parties as the charges for printing of the book is not entitled to get any relief, F.A. No. 27 of 1991 preferred by the Complainant No. 1 has necessarily to fail. In the result, we allow F.A. No. 8 of 1991 and set aside the order passed by the State Commission whereby the appellant herein has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 26,190/- with interest and costs to Complainant No. 1 by way of damages for non-delivery of 400 copies of the book entitled "Ward Procedure" and original Complaint No. 31 of 1990 shall stand dismissed. The appellant shall be entitled to recover Rs. 1000/- from respondent No. 2 herein (Complainant No. 2 before the State Commission) by way of costs of this appeal. First Appeal No. 27 of 1991 will stand dismissed without any order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.