Himachal Pradesh

Una

14/2013(Hmr)

Promila Rana - Complainant(s)

Versus

Aap Ka Faisla Prakashan - Opp.Party(s)

Sh. S.S.Baryana

12 Feb 2015

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM UNA
DISTRICT UNA (HP).
 
Complaint Case No. 14/2013(Hmr)
 
1. Promila Rana
wife of Sh. Shukal Rana Director SPRA SC. & Tech. Coaching Centre, Subhash Nagar,(Dosarka) Ward No.11,Opposite Patyal Hardware Appliances(20 Meters Downward) Hamirpur(HP)-177001
...........Complainant(s)
Versus
1. Aap Ka Faisla Prakashan
Pvt. Ltd.,Vill Kohli ,P.O. Bohni,Teh. & Distt. Hamirpur (HP)-177001
............Opp.Party(s)
 
BEFORE: 
 HON'BLE MR. B.R. Chandel PRESIDENT
 
For the Complainant:Sh. S.S.Baryana, Advocate
For the Opp. Party:
Sh.Navin Patial,Adv for OP.
 
ORDER

O R D E R  :-( per Mr. B.R. Chandel, President )                      

                Admittedly, the opposite party is carrying on the business of publishing ‘Newspaper’ and ‘Himachal Business Directory’ under the name and style ‘ Apka Faisla Prakashan Pvt. Ltd.’. The complainant Promila Rana is running a coaching centre under the name and style ‘SBRA SC and TECH  Coaching Centre’ at Hamirpur. The complainant intended to get advertisement of the said institute published  in ‘Himachal Business Directory’ , hence preferred booking application Annexure C-1 before the opposite party on 08-03-2011 which was duly accepted by the opposite party and the opposite party received Rupees 3,000/- through cheque No. 502231 drawn on Punjab National Bank, Hamirpur, against receipt. The opposite party published the advertisement in Himachal Business Directory in the month of January, 2013 Annexure C-2 and sent the copy of the same to the complainant on 09-01-2013. There is also no dispute that the said directory is published once in a year.

2.     In view of the above stated undisputed facts, the complainant on the strength of this complaint has claimed that the opposite party be directed to make payment of a compensation of Rupees 50,000/- for harassment and mental pain  and Rupees 50,000/- for loss of business along with cost of the complaint on the grounds  that at the time of booking  and receipt of Rupees 3000/- , the opposite party assured the complainant to publish the said advertisement in the said “Business Directory” within 5-10 days, but failed to publish the same. The entrance test was to be held in the month of May 2011 for the admission in the polytechnic college for the academic session 2011-12 for which the candidates had to seek admission in the coaching centre preparing for the entrance test, but the opposite party did not publish the advertisement in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant. The said advertisement was also not published for the coaching for the academic session of 2011-12 due to which the complainant had suffered huge monetary loss in her business and has suffered harassment due to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

3.     The opposite party disputed the said claim and has set up the defence that the opposite party never assured the complainant that the advertisement in question would be published in 5-10 days nor the opposite party had made any commitment, however, the directory is published once in a year. The advertisement in question has been published  at page-8  of the directory and the same has also been sent through registered letter to the complainant on 09-01-2013 and as such the opposite party has not committed any unfair trade practice or deficiency in service.

4.     The complainant has filed the present complaint on 09-01-2013. To the utter surprise the opposite party sent the advertisement published at page-8 through registered letter to the complainant on 09-01-2013, but no proof of sending  the same on the said date has been produced in evidence except deposition  made in affidavit Annexure R-1 on behalf of the opposite party. It appears that the opposite party thought it proper to publish the said advertisement Annexure C-2 in the directory only on apprehension of filing complaint the present by the complainant and failed to publish the same well in time. The opposite party has admitted that the directory is published once in a year, but the opposite party has failed to explain as to why the said advertisement was not published in the directory in the year 2011 and 2012 and in absence of such explanantion  this forum is bound to conclude that the opposite party negligently failed to publish the advertisement in question in the directory not only in the year 2011, but also in the year 2012. There is no dispute that the complainant has opened a coaching centre for preparing candidates for entrance test in the polytechnic college, but the said entrance test had to be held in the month of May 2011. Prior to the said entrance test  the complainant wanted to get the advertisement in question published for attracting the candidates to seek admission in the coaching , but the opposite party failed to publish the same without there being any cogent reason or any reasonable or probable cause. Not to say only this, the said advertisement was also not published in the directory for the year 2012 nor the opposite party has explained   the said lapse. The opposite party  has also failed to refund the booking amount of Rupees 3000/-  and as such the opposite party also debarred the complainant for getting the said advertisement published in the Directory for two years in spite of receipt of booking amount and undertaking given to publish the same at least within reasonable time and has set up a false defence that the opposite party never assured the complainant to publish the same within 10-15 days. The opposite party could have explained to the complainant that it was not able to publish the advertisement at least upto the year 2013, but it has also not been done so, as a result of which the said negligence on the part of the opposite party constitutes unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

5.     In view of the evidence discussed and findings recorded above, this Forum is left with no alternative except to conclude that the opposite party has committed unfair trade practice and deficiency in service, due to which he has suffered harassment and monetary loss.  

RELIEF:

In view of the findings recorded above, the complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay a punitive compensation  of Rupees 5,000/- within 30 days  from the receipt of copy of this order, failing which the said amount shall bear interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing    of the complaint i.e. 09-01-2013 till the said amount is paid. The opposite party is also directed to pay cost of the complaint which we assess at Rupees 5,000/-. Let certified copy of this order be sent to the parties free of cost, as per rules. The file, after its registration and due completion be consigned to the records.  

 

      ANNOUNCED AND SIGNED IN OPEN COURT

     ON THIS THE 12th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015

 

 

 

                        (B.R. Chandel )

                            President

 

 

(Th. Digvijay Singh)                   ( Sushma Sharma)

        Member                                     Member

 

 

 

 
 
[HON'BLE MR. B.R. Chandel]
PRESIDENT

Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.