D.O.F. 01.06.2009 D.O.O. 14.01.2011 IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR Present: Sri. K. Gopalan : President Smt. K.P. Preethakumari : Member Smt. M.D. Jessy : Member Dated this the 14th day of January, 2010. C.C.No.146/2009 P.S. Prakash, Lecturer, Type-II/2 Quarters, Govt. Brennan College Campus, : Complainant Dharmadam, Thalassery – 670 106 (Rep. by Adv. M. Preman) 1. Managing Director, The New Indian Express, East Hill Road, Kozhikode – 673 005 2. Circulation Manager, The New Indian Express, East Hill Road, Kozhikode – 673 005 3. Sudhakaran, : Opposite Parties Sales Officer, The New Indian Express, East Hill Road, Kozhikode – 673 005 4. E. Vasu, Agent - The New Indian Express, Jayavalli Nivas, P.O. Dharmadam, Thalassery. PIN : 670 016 O R D E R Smt. K.P. Preethakumari, Member. This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act for refund of ` 720 with interest along with ` 10,000 as compensation and cost. The brief facts of the case of the complainant is that on 27.06.2008, the opposite party 3 approached him and requested to subscribe New Indian Express daily and the complainant subscribed by paying ` 720 for one year commencing from 01.07.2008. But he has received the paper from 10.07.2008 to 18.09.2008 only. So the complainant approached and given complaint to opposite party No.3 & 4 several times. Since no action was taken by the opposite parties for supplying news paper, the complainant has issued a registered notice to opposite party 2 for refund of the above said amount. But all are in vain. Hence this complaint. In pursuance to the notice issued by the Forum opposite party 2 & 3 appeared and filed version. Opposite party 1 & 4 remains absent and hence they were called absent and set exparte. The opposite party 2 & 3 filed version admitting that the complainant has subscribed for New Indian Express News paper on 27.06.2008 by paying ` 720 as subscription fee and the opposite parties are given a CD of Britanica Encyclopaedia worth ` 980. Moreover opposite parties were supplied daily regularly from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009 for one year at his residence in Brennan College quarters, Thalassery. The opposite party 3 has enquired about the complaint of non-receipt of daily with the agent and he replied that the complainant is in receipt of the News paper daily. Thereafter the opposite party 3 met the complainant from the college and he abused the opposite party 3 from there. Opposite party 4 is a person who has been working as an agent for 20 years and having good reputation. The complainant is a litigant by nature and has filed the complaint for abstracting money from a reputed daily like Indian Express and hence there is no merit in the case and the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The following issues have been raised from the above pleadings. 1. Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties. 2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1 to A4. The case of the complainant is that he has received Indian Express daily only for two months and 8 days eventhough he had subscribed for one year by giving ` 720 in advance and opposite parties were not heeded to his complaint. In order to prove his case he was examined and produced documents such as original receipt, copy of registered notice, acknowledgement and brochure. In order to disprove the case opposite party 3 was examined as DW1. The opposite party contended that they have issued news paper regularly for one year ie from 01.07.08 to 30.06.09 and also given a CD of Britanica Encyclopaedia worth ` 980 by considering the nature of job of the complainant. The Ext.A1 along with the admission of the opposite party 3 and 4 proves that the complainant had subscribed for the opposite parties News Paper on 27.06.2008. Ext.A2 is a registered notice issued by the complainant to opposite party 2. But regarding date of issuance of the notice the opposite party raised same allegation. It is true that in A2 the date is shown as 11th March, 2007. But while going through the letter and the Ext.A3 ie acknowledgment dated 24.03.2009, it become clear that the letter is issued on 11.03.2009 and the date shown as 11.03.07 is a mistake on the part of the complainant. This letter very specifically states that the complainant has received the daily from 10.07.2008 to 18.09.2008 and afterwards he did not receive the news paper. As per the version of opposite party 3 & 4 itself it is clear that the subscription period is from 01.07.2008 to 30.06.2009. So the complaint as per A2 was given by the complainant during the subscription period itself. A3 clearly shows that the opposite party 3 has received the A2 letter on 13.03.2009. Moreover the opposite party 3 has no case that he has not received such letter. The DW1 who is opposite party 3 deposed before the Forum that “]cm-Xn-¡m-c³ XnIª AlT`mhn-bpT A\m-h-i-y-ambn {]iv\-§Ä Dm-¡p¶ Bfm-sW-¶pT a\-Ên-em-bXv Rm³ t\cn«v tImtf-Pn t]mbn At\-z-jn-¨-t¸mÄ Ipsd Ip«n-I-fpsS ap¶n sh¨v Fs¶ get out ]d-ª-Xn-\m-em-Wv. He further deposed that “hy-h-lm-c-{]n-b-\m-sW¶v a\-Ên-em-¡m³ Imc-WT At±-lT Hm^o-kn Ab¨ I¯ns³-d ASn-Øm-\-¯n-em-Wv. I¯nsâ Xob-Xn ap¼v X¿m-dm-¡n-b-Xm-Wv.” From the above deposition it is clear that such allegation is made only for the purpose of the case. Moreover the Ext.A11 is a brochure which clearly shows that the alleged Britannica Encyclopedia CD was given as free to the person who had subscribed an annual subscription to the New Indian Express. So the contention that the CD was given to the complainant considering the nature of his work is also made only for the purpose of the case. It is pertinent to note that the opposite party has not examined the agent opposite party 4 as witness. Moreover opposite party 4 was not entered appearance eventhough he is the agent. The opposite party 2’s case is that after getting the complaint he approached the opposite party 4 and arrived the conclusion that the complainant has made a false complaint. It is deposed by DW1 that opposite party 4 is still their agent. So the best person to explain that he has given the daily newspaper to the complainant is and to deny the allegation against opposite parties is opposite party 4. Due to non-examination of opposite party 4 an adverse inference can be drawn in favour of the complainant. Above all the complainant is a College Lecturer and there is no need to disbelieve the words of the complainant. So we are of opinion that there is latches on the part of opposite parties in distributing the news paper as per the promise and hence there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties for which they are liable to compensate the complainant by refunding ` 720 to the complainant along with ` 2000 as compensation and ` 500 as cost of this proceedings and order passed accordingly. In the result the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to refund ` 720 (Rupees Seven Hundred and Twenty only) along with ` 2000 (Rupees Two Thousand only) as compensation with ` 500 (Rupees Five Hundred only) as cost of the proceedings within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Otherwise the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per provisions of Consumer Protection Act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the Complainant A1. Temporary receipt dated 27.06.2008. A2. Copy of the letter dated 11.03.2007 A3. Acknowledgement card dated 13.03.2007 A4. Advertisement of the New Indian Express. Exhibits for the opposite party Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1. Complainant Witness examined for opposite party DW1. Sudhakaran P.K. /forwarded by order/ SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
| | [HONORABLE PREETHAKUMARI.K.P] Member[HONORABLE MR. GOPALAN.K] PRESIDENT[HONORABLE JESSY.M.D] Member | | 
