DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

(CENTRAL) ISBT KASHMERE GATE DELHI

CC No. 236/2017

No. DF/ Central/                                                                      Date

Amresh Chandra Mathur

6/104, Chiranjiv Vihar

Ghaziabad, New Delhi-201002                                              ......COMPLAINANTS

Versus

HT Media Limited

2E, Caxton House, Rani Jhansi Road,

Jhandewalan Extension

New Delhi-110005

Hindustan Times Limited

18-20 Kasturba Gandhi Marg,

New Delhi-110001                                                             …..OPPOSITE PARTIES

Quorum:     Ms. Rekha Rani, President

                   Ms. Manju Bala Sharma, Member

Mr. R.S. Nagar, Member

ORDER

Ms. Rekha Rani, President

1.       Amresh Chanda Mathur (in short the complainant) filed the instant complaint seeking “refund of Rs. 407.25/- being the proportionate amount of unutilized coupons for supply of Hindustan Times paper, Rs. 40,000/- towards damages for causing harassment and mental agony, Rs. 30,000/- as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation expenses” on the basis of his allegations that on being contacted through sales representative of HT Media Limited (in short OP1) he paid Rs. 699/- in favour of OP1 on 07.04.2015.  He was provide coupons for 1 year supply to be given to the Hindustan Times newspaper vendor, after receipt of paper each month.  It is alleged that HT Limited (OP2) did not supply newspaper as promised from June 2015 to November 2015 and May 2016 due to which unutilized coupons worth Rs. 407.25 are lying with the complainant.  It is further stated that he sought refund of subscription amount for the months for which newspaper was not supplied.

2.       Notice of the instant complaint was issued to the OPs who appeared and contested claim vide reply stating therein that the complaint is barred by limitation.  It is also stated that this forum has no jurisdiction to entertain the instant complaint.  The claim is contested on merits also.  It is stated that the customer has to handover the coupons to local vendor for supply of newspaper.  It is stated that the complainant intentionally did not give coupons to the vendor with a view to file a frivolous complaint.  It is also stated that OPs had offered to refund the amount vide their e-mail dated 14.08.2015 but complainant never provided the requisite information and suddenly vide his e-mail dated 19.09.2017 threatened to file the instant complaint.

3.       Parties filed evidence by way of affidavits.  They have also filed written arguments.  We have heard complainant in person and Sh. Satyaveer Sharma, counsel for OPs.

4.       In Para 2 of the complaint it is mentioned that complainant made a payment of  Rs.699/- in favour of OP1 to provide coupons for one year supply of newspapers to him.  The same is not denied in corresponding Para 2 of the written statement and as such this forum has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.

5.       We will deal with the issue of complaint being barred by limitation while deciding the case on merits.    

6.       Now coming to merits of the case, learned counsel for OPs submitted that the instant complaint is frivolous and baseless as the OPs vide their e-mail dated 14.08.2015 had clearly offered to refund the subscription amount to the complainant and asked him to share the name on which refund cheque needed to be issued.  It is further stated that complainant did not give the information.

          When we confronted the complainant with the said e-mail of the OPs which he himself has placed on record with his complaint he said the he is not interested in refund of the subscription money because he wants to continue with the Hindustan Times newspaper as he is an avid reader thereof.

          Complainant’s case is not consistent as is evident form the case file.

          In Para 7 of the complaint he clearly stated that he requested OP1 to refund the subscription amount for the months for which newspaper was not supplied whereas his e-mail dated 12.08.2015 addressed to the OPs is to the contrary.  He wrote that “simply returning the subscription amount is not likely to absolve you of your statutory liability.”     It is therefore clear that on the one hand the complainant says that he wanted refund of the subscription amount from the OPs (in Para 7 of the complaint) whereas on the other hand in his e-mail dated 12.08.2015 he refused to accept the same.  His intention not to accept the refund of the subscription money is clear from the fact that he did not share the name on which refund cheque was to be prepared as desired by OPs for processing the refund in his favour.

7.       Further in Para 4 of his complaint he has mentioned that he received newspaper supply from November 2015 to March 2016 whereas in Para 6 of the complaint he said that he did not receive newspaper from June 2015 to November 2015.  As per his case stated in Para 5 of the complaint the newspaper supply was stopped w.e.f. April 2016.  In Para 6 he has not mentioned that newspaper was not supplied for April 2016.  He has stated that newspaper was not supplied for the months of June 2015 to November 2015 and May 2016 i.e. for 7 months.

          Learned counsel for the OP contended that if complainant did not want refund of the subscription amount and wanted to continue with the supply of the newspaper as he claims to be an avid reader of the said newspaper, he would not have waited to file the instant complaint for more than 2 years as even per complainant’s own case as stated in Para 2, Page 2 of his rejoinder cause of action to file the complaint arose w.e.f. June 2015.  He submitted that even if it is believed that cause of action arose in June 2015, instant complaint was filed on 23.10.2017.  A question mark is therefore raised on the real intention of the complainant as to whether he wanted refund of subscription money only or something else.

          Learned counsel for OPs also argued that OPs at the very threshold offered to refund Rs. 699 paid by the complainant but he smartly refused to accept it and subsequently had taken the newspaper for 5 months but refused to give the coupons and so the vendor stopped providing him the newspaper.  Learned counsel for the OP reiterated their stand to refund the subscription amount of the complainant. 

          Even if a few months delay in filing the instant complainant is condoned there is no merit in the case.  In Para 7 of the complaint it is stated that complainant requested OP1 to refund the subscription amount for the months for which newspaper was not supplied.  Total subscription amount was Rs. 699/- and the amount claimed by the complainant is Rs. 407.25 i.e. for the months when newspaper was allegedly not supplied.  OP way back vide their e-mail dated 14.08.2015 had offered to refund the subscription amount.  Complainant was not interested in refund as is clear from his e-mail dated 12.08.2015 wherein he stated that “simply returning the subscription amount is not likely to absolve you of your statutory liability”.  It is a settled law that Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not meant to be a tool to obtain wrong gain or create ‘nuisance value’.  Accordingly, let Rs. 407.25/- be refunded to the complainant by the OPs.  No further amount towards alleged harassment or towards tension, litigation cost or compensation is payable.  The said amount shall be paid within 30 days failing which 9% interest per annum shall be payable from the date of order till the date of payment.  The complaint is accordingly disposed of.  Copy of this order be sent to the parties as statutorily required. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on         Day of                      , 2019.