BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 30/06/2012

Date of Order : 31/10/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 395/2012

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. The facts of the case leading to this complaint are as follows :-

The complainant has been a subscriber of the Malayala Manorama daily for the last 20 years. The 1^st opposite party is the agent of the 2^nd opposite party who is the publisher of the daily. The monthly subscription of the daily fixed by the 2^nd opposite party is Rs. 121.20. But the 1^st opposite party who was delivering the daily at the residence of the complainant had illegally demanded an amount of Rs. 137/- per month from the complainant. The complainant contacted the 2^nd opposite party and they intimated that the monthly subscription charge is inclusive of agent's commission for delivery at the residence. So, the complainant refused to pay the excess amount demanded by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party has stopped the delivery of the daily from the month of October 2011. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking direction against the 1^st opposite party to deliver the newspaper at the residence of the complainant without claiming any extra charges together with compensation and costs of the proceedings of Rs. 5,000/- each.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party is as follows :-

The 1^st opposite party availed himself of an agency of the 2^nd opposite party on 01-05-1998. The 1^st opposite party has been collecting Rs. 15/- per month from the subscribers, since 01-12-2010 due to the continuous price hike of fuel. The collection of the said charges is in concurrence with the 2^nd opposite party. The complainant collected a blank bill book from the 1^st opposite party to get the price of the daily reimbursed from his employer. The 1^st opposite party used to collect the subscription amount from the complainant after 3 or 5 months. Finally on 24-04-2011, the 1^st opposite party collected the subscription of the daily from the complainant for the period from 01-12-2010 to 30-04-2011 to the tune of Rs. 610/- excluding the distribution charges. At that juncture, the complainant informed the 1^st opposite party to stop the supply of the daily. Accordingly, the 1^st opposite party stopped the supply of daily to the complainant. The bill appended along with the complaint is not issued by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is the sole bread winner of the family. The 1^st opposite party could not deliver the newspaper without the distribution charges.

3. The 2^nd opposite party appeared through counsel, but they did not file any version. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A4 were marked on the side of the complainant. Heard the counsel for the complainant and the 2^nd opposite party.

4. The points that arose for consideration are as follows :-

1. Whether the 1^st opposite party is liable to continue with the supply of the Malayala Manorama daily to the complainant?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get compensation and costs of the proceedings?

5. Point No. i. :- The following issues are undisputed :-

1. The 1^st opposite party is the publisher of the Malayala Manorama daily and the 2^nd opposite party is their agent.

2. The complainant has been a subscriber of the daily for the last 20 years.

3. The price of the daily fixed by the 2^nd opposite party is Rs. 121.20 per mensum.

4. The 1^st opposite party had been collecting distribution charges of Rs. 15/- per month from the complainant, since 01-12-2010 in addition to the price fixed by the 2^nd opposite party.

5. The 1^st opposite party stopped the delivery of the daily to the complainant.

6. The only question that arises for consideration is whether the 1^st opposite party is legally entitled to collect Rs. 15/- from the complainant in addition to the price fixed by the 2^nd opposite party. Admittedly, the price fixed by the 2^nd opposite party is Rs. 121.20 which includes the commission of Rs. 32.50 to the 1^st opposite party evident from Ext. A4 the notice published by the 2^nd opposite party in the daily periodically. The levying of extra charges from an ultimate consumer than the price fixed by the printer and publisher thus not only amounts to deficiency in service, but also to unfair trade practice. In that view of the matter, the complainant is entitled to get the daily at the price fixed by the 2^nd opposite party and the 1^st opposite party is liable to deliver the same without any extra charges.

7. Point No. ii. :- The newspaper has become an object of at most importance to a person who is in the habit of reading it, irrespective of the class and status of life to which he belongs especially in Kerala. Which has become his wont to reading the newspaper with his morning cup of tea usually. The instant case is such an example which has necessarily caused uncalled for trouble to the complainant which calls for compensation and costs of the proceedings. We fix it at Rs. 1,000/- each..

8. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :-

1. The 1^st opposite party shall deliver the newspaper daily of the 2^nd opposite party at the price fixed by the 2^nd opposite party without causing unnecessary delay.

2. The 1^st opposite party shall also pay Rs. 1,000/- each to the complainant towards compensation and costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, failing which the above amounts shall carry interest @ 12% p.a. till payment.

Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 31^st day of October 2012

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========