Haryana

StateCommission

A/800/2018

MANISHA RANI - Complainant(s)

Versus

JYOTI BOOK DEPOT PVT. - Opp.Party(s)

VAIBHAV JAIN

30 Jul 2024

ORDER

STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

HARYANA, PANCHKULA

 

First Appeal No.800 of 2018

                   Date of Institution:25.06.2018

          Date of Decision:30.07.2024

 

Manisha Rani D/o Narayan Dass, R/o C/o Shri Bhagi Rath Jaat Village Dhanger Tehsil & District Fatehabad Haryana.

…Complainant/Appellant

Versus

 

1.      Jyoti Book Depot Private Limited, 295 Ebrahim Mandi, Karnal District Karnal Haryana Telephone 0184-2241119, 2241694 through its proprietor.

…Opposite Party No.1/Respondent No.1

2.      Arya Book Depot, near Fawara Chowk, Fatehabad, District Fatehabad through its proprietor.

…Opposite Party No.2/Respondent No.2

 

CORAM:   Hon’ble Mr. Justice T.P.S Mann, President.

                   Mr.S.P.Sood, Judicial Member

                   Mrs. Manjula, Member.

 

Present:-    Sh. Rohit Goswami proxy counsel for Sh. Vaibhav Jain, counsel for the appellant.

                   Sh.Saurav proxy counsel for Sh.Neeraj Sharma, counsel for the respondent No.1.

                   Respondent No.2 proceeded ex-parte.

 

O R D E R

T.P.S. MANN J.

 

          This complainants’ appeal is directed against the order dated 28.03.2018  passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Fatehabad (for short ‘District Consumer Commission’), whereby the complaint filed by the complainant was dismissed.

2.      The brief facts of the case are that complainant purchased a book  for Rs.115/- titled as Deepak Exam Notes Sanskrit (Elective) for the Session 2016-17 from opposite party No.2. The said book was published in the year 2016 by opposite party No.1. The complainant appeared for examinations in April 2017. She was shocked after seeing the exam paper because it was entirely different as she had studied from Deepak Exam Notes Sanskrit (elective) Session 2016-2017. She conducted enquiry about this and came to know that OP No.1 published old syllabus and due to  above said problem, complainant had to face all problems and had to appear in exam again and got too much mental agony due to old syllabus publication.  OP No.1 caused loss at large scale and fraudulently gained hard earned money of students by publishing old  syllabus with name of new syllabus. She suffered loss and damages for harassment, physical injury and mental agony and costs of the present proceeding, which the complainant assessed at Rs.90,000/-.

3.      Upon notice, the opposite parties filed separate written version.  OP No.1 submitted that complainant did not purchase any book from OP No.1 at any time and complainant has not attached any bill/invoice for purchasing the book in question.  In case the question papers in the examinations had come out of syllabus and complainant has failed to pass the exam then it does not amount to deficiency in service on the part of the OP No.1.  It was further submitted that total syllabus has been published by the answering OP in the exam notes and present complaint has been filed for grabbing money from it.  It further prayed for dismissal of the complaint.

4.      OP No.2 submitted that complainant has not purchased the exam notes in question from answering OP and complainant has not annexed any bill/invoice of purchasing the exam notes, from which it is clear that version of the complainant is nothing but the same is bundle of lies.  Answering OP had no knowledge about the complainant appearing in the alleged exam. The complainant was not entitled to get any amount of alleged compensation from answering OP and prayed that complaint be dismissed with special cost.

5.      The arguments have been advanced by Sh. Rohit Goswami proxy counsel for Sh. Vaibhav Jain, counsel for the appellant as well as Sh.Saurav proxy counsel for Sh.Neeraj Sharma, counsel for the respondent No.1. With their kind assistance the entire records as well as the original record of the District Commission including whatever the evidence has been led on behalf of parties has also been properly perused and examined.

6.      Learned proxy counsel for the complainant-appellant vehemently argued that  she purchased a book of Sanskrit (Elective) for the session 2016-17 from OP No.2, published by OP No.1 for preparing for her exam in  the year 2017, but, after perusing the examination paper, she felt that the syllabus mentioned in the book was different from the syllabus prescribed by the University.  On account of the same, the complainant-appellant suffered huge financial loss.

7.      Learned proxy counsel for the respondent No.1 vehemently argued that complainant did not purchase any book from OP No.1 at any time and the complainant did not attach any bill/invoice for purchasing the book in question, so the learned District Consumer Commission-Fatehabad has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

8.      Perusal of the impugned order as well as record of the learned District Consumer Commission-Fatehabad reveals that complainant has not placed on record any bill/invoice for purchasing of Sanskrit book. Since, no invoice or bill has been produced by the complainant, she is not entitled for any relief/compensation as prayed for.   It is the responsibility of the complainant before purchasing the book in question, she should have compared the syllabuswith university syllabus and received the bill in question from the concerned book depot. Moreover, consideration is the most important relevant element to file the consumer complaints in District Consumer Commissions. The complainant did not produce any bill/invoice for purchasing the book, so the complainant-appellant is not a ‘Consumer’. Since, complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as provided under section 2 (i) (d) of the  Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The learned District Consumer Commission-Fatehabad has rightly dismissed the complaint of the complainant.The State Commission finds no reason or ground to interfere with the order of learned District Consumer Commission. Hence the appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.

9.  

10.    A copy of this judgment be provided to all the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The judgment be uploaded forthwith on the website of the Commission for  perusal of the parties.

11.    File be consigned to record room.

 

 

30th July, 2024                    Manjula         S.P.Sood                  T.P. S. Mann

                                                Member             Judicial Member             President

 

S.K

(Pvt. Secy.)