1

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

U.T., CHANDIGARH

Appeal No. : 108 of 2021

Date of Institution : 29.11.2021
Date of Decision : 06.01.2022

Pardeep Jain, Director, Jaina India Pvt. Limited, D-170, Pocket-D, Okhla
Phase-1, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi-110020.
……Appellant
Versus
1. Vikram @ Pankaj Mohindru, resident of H.No.00628, Block No.8, Ward
No.1, Kamau Colony, Nada Road, Naya Gaon, SAS Nagar.
2. Charanjeet Associates through proprietor Balwinder Singh Chawla, Unit
Situated at SCO No.1093, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh.
3. Sansui India Pvt. Ltd., having its Office at Mittal Court, C-Wingh,
17th Floor, Mumbai having Service Centre at 25/3, Phase-2, Ram Darbar,
Chandigarh
…..Respondents

BEFORE: JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT.

MRS.PADMA PANDEY, MEMBER.
MR.RAJESH K. ARYA, MEMBER.

Present through Video Conferencing:-

Sh.Vipul Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellant.
Sh.Vikram @Pankaj Mohindru, respondent no.1 in person.
Sh.Balwinder Singh Chawla, Proprietor of respondent no.2.
Respondent No.3 exparte vide order dated 05.01.2022

PER JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI, PRESIDENT

The legal controversy, which arises for consideration in the

present appeal, emanates from the plea of the appellant-Pardeep Jain, who
has been impleaded by the complainant/decree holder, as Director of Sansui
(India) Pvt. Ltd./Judgment Debtor No.2, during pendency of the execution
proceedings pending before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission-II, U.T., Chandigarh (in short the District Commission); whereas
in this appeal, he (Pardeep Jain) has claimed that he joined as licensee
alongwith Sansui Acoustics Research Corporation w.e.f. 01.08.2018, in the
capacity of Managing Director of Jaina India Private Limited and he is not the
Director of Sansui (India) Pvt. Ltd.
2. Undisputedly, consumer complaint bearing no.565 of 2019 was
filed by respondent no.1/complainant-Vikram alias Pankaj Mohindru, before
the District Commission, against Charanjeet Associates through its prop
 2

Balwinder Singh Chawla Unit Situated at SCO No.1093, Sector 22-B,

Chandigarh (respondent no.2 in this appeal) and Sansui (India) Pvt. Ltd.,
having its Corporate Office at Mittal Court, C-Wingh, 17th Floor, Mumbai
having its Service Centre at 25/3, Phase-2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh
(respondent no.3 in this appeal). The allegations leveled by him in his
complaint were that he purchased one Sansui LED TV on 02.10.2016 from
opposite party no.1- Charanjeet Associates, for an amount of Rs.57,000/-,
which carried a warranty of three years. It was averred that the said LED TV
gave problem on 24.8.2018, which was reported to the customer care of the
company. The engineer of the company visited the house of the complainant
and after checking the said LED TV, he conveyed that its panel needs to be
replaced. The matter was brought to the notice of Mr.Harjinder Singh,
Manager of the company on 27.9.2018, as well as on 8.10.2018, who assured
to supply the said panel but to no avail. When the complainant requested the
opposite parties to replace the defective LED TV, they flatly refused to do so,
as a result whereof, consumer complaint aforesaid was filed before the
District Commission.
3. The said consumer complaint was not contested by the opposite
parties, as despite deemed service, none had put in appearance on their
behalf, as a result whereof, they were proceeded against exparte vide order
dated 14.08.2019.
4. Consequently, the District Commission after hearing the
complainant in person and going through the material available on record,
allowed the consumer complaint, vide order dated 01.08.2019, against
opposite parties no.1 and 2 i.e. Charanjeet Associates and Sansui (India) Pvt.
Ltd., as under:-

a. “To refund an amount of Rs.57,000/- to the complainant being

the cost of the product in question.

b. To pay a compensation of Rs.5000/- towards the harassment

suffered by the complainant due to deficient act of OPs.

c. To pay litigation cost of Rs.2000/- to the complainant.

This order shall be complied with by the Opposite Parties within a

period of 30 days from the date of receipt of its certified copy,
failing which they shall be liable to pay the above awarded
amount along with interest @9% p.a. from the date of this order till
payment.

However, it is made clear that the OPs may collect the defective
LED TV in question from the complainant only after making
payment of the above awarded amount to the complainant….”

5. When the order dated 01.08.2019 was not complied with by the
opposite parties, the complainant/decree holder filed execution application
 3

bearing no.30 of 2020 before the District Commission against Charanjit

Associates through its prop. Mr. Balwinder Singh Chawla situated at SCO no.
1093, Sector 22-B Chandigarh and Sansui (India) Pvt. Ltd having its
corporate office at Mittal Court, C-Wing, 17th Floor, Mumbai having its
service centre at 25/3, Phase 2, Ram Darbar, Chandigarh. (New) Corporate
office) Sansui India, corporate office at Plot no 296, Udyog Vihar, near phase
2, Gurgaon-122016.
6. A bare perusal of record makes it very clear that Pardeep
Jain/appellant was neither a party in the consumer complaint bearing
no.565 of 2019 nor he was impleaded as judgment debtor in the above said
execution application no.30 of 2020, before the District Commission.
7. It is only on 27.01.2021, that the respondent no.1/complainant
filed a fresh memorandum of parties before the District Commission, as
under:-

“1. Charanjeet Associates, Prop. Mr. Balwinder Singh Chawla

SCO-1093, Sector-22 B, Chandigarh-160022 Mobile-
9814038551/769631111/0172-4051666(0)

2. Sansui INDIA (Corporate office) Mr. Pardeep Jain, Director,

Sansui India C/o Jaina India Pvt. Limited D-170, Pocket D,
Okhla Phase I, Okhla Industrial Area, New Delhi, Delhi
110020

Phone no 0114660466 Email:sansuicare@jainaindia.com

3. Sansui INDIA Plot number-296, Udyog Vihar,, Haryana near

Phase-2, Gurgaon-122015 Phone No. 0124-3273091

4. Sansui India Head office: KAIL Limited, 171, 17th Floor,

Mittal Court, C-Wing, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021 Ph. No
022-61644444 Email: marketing@sansuimail.in”

8. Thus, non-bailable warrants were also issued by the District

Commission, against Pardeep Jain, alleging to be the Director of the company
named Sansui (India) Pvt. Ltd.
9. None put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.3, despite
deemed service, as a result whereof, it was proceeded against exparte vide
order dated 05.01.2022.
10. We have heard Counsel for the appellant and respondent no.2, as
well as respondent no.1 in person; gone through the material available on
the record; and are of the considered opinion that this appeal deserves to be
allowed, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter.
11. The appellant-Pardeep Jain had been impleaded in the execution
application solely on the ground that he is the Director of Sansui (India) Pvt.
Ltd. However on the other hand, Counsel for the appellant has placed on
record Company/LLP Master Date-Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government
 4

of India, Annexure A-7, which transpires that Sanjay Mohanlal Bafna and
Sunil Bankatlal Desadla, are the Directors of the company in question.
However, there is not even a single document placed on record to establish
that the appellant-Pardeep Jain is the Director of Sansui (India) Pvt. Ltd.
Thus, from the material available on record, it can safely be said that the
appellant-Pardeep Jain is not the Director of Sansui (India) Pvt. Ltd.
12. Furthermore, to strengthen his case, the appellant has also
placed on record the Trademark Licence Agreement dated 01.08.2018,
Annexure A-5, executed between Sansui Acoustics Research Corporation, a
company organized and existing under the laws of the British Virgin Islands
and having its registered address at Vistra Corporate Services Centre,
Wickhams Cay 11, Read Town Tortola, VG1110, British Virgin Islands and
Jaina India Private Limited, a company organized and existing under the laws
of the Republic of India with registration number U51909DL2014PTC268807
and having its registered address at D-170 Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-1,
New Delhi-110020, India. Annexure A-5 is a licensed instrument and its para
nos.1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 read as under:-
"1.1 Agreement" shall mean this Trademark License Agreement.
1.2 "Certificate" shall mean a certificate from Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu or such
other independent Chartered Accounting Firm as may reasonably be acceptable
to the Licensor, certifying the Purchase Value and Sales Value of each of the
Products and the aggregate Purchase Value and Sales Value of all Products, A/P
Budget and A/P Expenditure, for the relevant License Period.
1.3 “Effective Date” shall mean 1 January 2019…..”

Further, Clause 2 .1 to 2.5 of the said document also reads as under:-

2.1 The Licensor hereby grants to the Licensee, and the Licensee hereby accepts
from the Licensor, an exclusive non-transferable right, strictly in the manner and
on the terms and conditions specified in this Agreement to (1) use the
Trademark, directly or indirectly, in connection with the sourcing of the Products,
from OEM Manufacturer(s) for sale in the Territory, (2) use the Trademark,
directly or indirectly, in connection with the design and/or manufacture of the
Products at the premises of the Licensee or OEM Manufacturer(s) for sale in the
Territory, and (3) introduce, advertise, promote, sell and distribute the Products
under or by reference to the Trademark in the Territory only. Under terms of
License granted herein, the Licensee is fully authorized to appoint nominate/
engage / contract services of any contractor, sub-contractor, distributor, OEM
Manufacturer to fulfill or Agreement or perform, in part, activities covered under
this Agreement. For purpose of clarity, any such appointment/nomination shall
be in strict conformance to the terms of this Agreement. Save and except for the
rights of Licensor and obligations of Licensee as provided in this Agreement,
commercial terms of engagement between Licensee and its contractor/sub-
contractor/ distributor/OEM Manufacturer shall be privileged information and
shall not be disclosed to the Licensor.

2.2 The Licensee and/or its Agent shall not be permitted to sell the Products through
nontraditional channels being those not known and hence not specifically
mentioned in this Agreement, without the express authorization of the Licensor,
provided that:

(a) sales through the following channels are permitted:

(i) Sales through Retail Distribution;
(ii) Business to Business or Business to Government or Business to
Consumer direct sales channel;
(iii) sales through Internet;
(iv) mail order catalogues;
 5

(v) sales and distribution through non retailers;

(vi) hotels and hotel chains;

(b) the Products sold are delivered to the purchasers within the Territory,
and are not meant for re-export or trading to regions outside of the
Territory.

The Licensee agrees and accepts that the Licensor may sell Products to
hotel chains within the Territory, where such purchase is made by the
Hotel as part of centralized procurement.

2.3 The Licensor agrees that, during the term of this Agreement, unless approved in
writing by the Licensee, it will not:--

(a) sell the Products, directly or indirectly, to customers or resellers

located in the Territory. Provided Always that the Licensor may sell
Products to hotel chains. within the Territory, where such purchase is
made by the Hotel as part of centralized procurement.; and/or

(b) appoint or authorize or permit any other licensee for sale within
the Territory of the Products in the Territory.

2.4 The Licensor hereby undertakes that during the term of this Agreement, it will
refer to the Licensee all direct and/or indirect inquiries, orders or requests made
to it for quotations for the Products originating from and/or intended for delivery
in the Territory.

2.5 Subject to the written approval of the Licensor, the Licensee is permitted to
register domain name(s), where the Trademark/Wordmark forms part of the
domain address, for purpose of hosting information and/or providing
information or services related to sales, distribution, price, specifications, etc., of
the Products in the Territory..”.

13. A bare perusal of the aforesaid clauses of trademark licence

makes it abundantly clear that the appellant-Pardeep Jain is the Licensee
with some Foreign Company working under the laws of the British Virgin
Islands, having its registered address at Vistra Corporate Services Centre,
Wickhams Cay 11, Read Town Tortola, VG1110. Bare perusal of this
document also clearly goes to show that he is the Managing Director of Jaina
India Private Limited and not Sansui (India) Pvt. Ltd.
14. To our mind, the appellant-Pardeep Jain cannot be fastened
upon the liability of Director of opposite party no.2-company- Sansui (India)
Pvt. Ltd. It seems that the District Commission has failed to appreciate this
fact and in this view of the matter, the service of Pardeep Jain, as Director,
allegedly of the company- Sansui (India) Pvt. Ltd. is bad in the eyes of law.
Consequently this appeal is allowed and the proceedings against the
appellant-Pardeep Jain before the District Commission in the execution
application bearing no.30 of 2020, by wrongly asserting him to be the
Director of Sansui (India) Pvt. Ltd. are ordered to be dropped, by holding that
he is not the Director of Sansui (India) Pvt. Ltd. Any coercive proceedings
initiated against the appellant-Pardeep Jain, by the District Commission in
the said execution application are ordered to be set aside.
 6

15. Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties, free of cost.
16. Record of the District Commission be returned back alongwith
certified copy of this order.
17. The concerned file be consigned to Record Room, after
completion.

Pronounced
06.01.2022
Sd/-
[JUSTICE RAJ SHEKHAR ATTRI]
PRESIDENT

Sd/-
(PADMA PANDEY)
MEMBER

Sd/-
(RAJESH K. ARYA)
MEMBER
Rg.