BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. PRESENT SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 239/2005 Dated : 15.11.2008 Complainant:
Babusenan, S/o Krishna Panicker, 'Swathy', Karakkonam, Kunnathukal, Neyyattinkara.
(By adv. A. Babu)
Opposite parties:
The Managing Director, Kerala Kaumudi, Kaumudi Building, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram. The Chief Editor, Kerala Kaumudi, Kaumudi Building, Pettah, Thiruvananthapuram. A.P. Jinan, Kerala Kaumudi Booking Office, Neyyattinkara.
(By adv. S. Ajith)
This O.P having been heard on 30.10.2008, the Forum on 15.11.2008 delivered the following:
ORDER SMT. BEENAKUMARI.A: MEMBER Brief facts of the complaint are as follows: The complainant approached the 3rd opposite party on 12.05.2005 and booked for advertising in Classified Column a matter that “വില്പനയ്ക്ക്- വെളളായണി ക്ഷേത്രം ശിവോദയം റോഡില് നിന്നും സ്കൂട്ടര് വഴി ഉളള കോണ്ക്രീററ് വീടോടു കൂടിയ 15 സെന്റ് വസ്തു- Phone No. 225336”. As per booking form No. 1778 the complainant had paid Rs. 270/- to the 3rd opposite party . The date of publication was on 15.05.2005. The complainant had a plan to purchase another property at Karakkonam with the money that would get out of the sale. 15.05.2005 was a Sunday. If the advertisement was published on that day more people would have seen that advertisement and he could sell the property in time. But the opposite parties did not publish the matter on 15.05.2005. When the complainant enquired the matter to the opposite parties, then they replied that they will publish the matter next day. As per the complainant, the act of the opposite parties is utter negligence and unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. For that act the complainant suffered so much. Hence he approached this Forum for the redressal of his grievances. The opposite parties, the Kerala Kaumudi daily filed their version. In their version they contended that the complainant booked the advertisement only on 13.05.2005. At the time of making the booking he was informed that the advertisement in the classified section will be scheduled two days prior to Sunday and the advertisement can be given in the Classified Column only if space is available. He was informed that if space is not available advertisement can be given on the next day. He had agreed for the same. But when he was contacted on 15.05.2005 informing that the advertisement can be given on the next day, he refused. There is no negligence or unfair trade practice as alleged. Hence the opposite party prayed for the dismissal of the complaint. The complainant filed affidavit in lieu of chief examination and the opposite party cross examined the complainant. The complainant has produced 7 documents to prove his case. Points to be ascertained: Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties? Whether the complainant is entitled to get the reliefs and costs?
Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant alleges that he entrusted the opposite party to publish his advertisement on 15.05.2005 which was a Sunday. But the opposite party did not publish the matter on that day. The opposite party stated the reason that the Classified Column of the paper got filled before the advertisement of the complainant reached the office. There is no wilful fault or negligence from their part. The next day itself they informed the matter to the complainant. But the complainant did not agree to publish the advertisement on the next day. The complainant argued that he had suffered huge loss due to that negligence. The complainant produced 7 documents to prove his complaint. That documents were marked as Exts. P1 to P7. Ext. P1 is the advertisement order booking form. This document shows that the complainant paid Rs. 270/- to the opposite party and also shows the proposed date of publication as 15.05.2005. Ext. P2 is the copy of lawyer's notice. Ext. P3 is the postal receipt. Ext. P4 is the acknowledgement card signed by the opposite party. Ext. P5 is the reply notice of opposite party. Ext. P6 is the copy of complaint filed by the complainant before the S.I. Of Police, Neyyattinkara. From the pleadings and evidence adduced by the complainant this Forum finds that there is no wilful negligence from the side of the opposite parties. The opposite party stated that the Classified Column of the paper was filled. Due to that reason they could not publish the advertisement of the complainant on that day and they informed the matter to the complainant and enquired whether the advertisement be published on the next day. But the complainant did not respond. In this case the complainant has not produced any evidence to prove his lose due to deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party. But we have seen that though there is no wilful negligence, there is deficiency in service from the side of opposite party as they are responsible to check the availability of the space in the paper before accepting the amount from the complainant. As per Ext. P1 order form the date of publication is seen as 15.05.2005. But the opposite party could not publish the matter on that day. Opposite parties' act amounts to deficiency in service. Hence this Forum allows the complaint in part. In the result, opposite party is directed to refund Rs. 270/-(Rupees two hundred and seventy only) to the complainant and directed to pay Rs. 200/-(Rupees two hundred only) as compensation and also shall pay Rs. 500/-(Rupees five hundred only) as cost. Time for compliance one month. Thereafter 9% interest shall be paid to the above said amounts. A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th November 2008.
BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER
G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT
S.K. SREELA : MEMBER O.P. No. 239/2005 APPENDIX I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : PW1 - Babusenan II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :
P1 - Photocopy of advertisement order booking form dated 12.05.2005. P1(a) - Photocopy of matter for advertisement. P2 - Photocopy of advocate notice dated 19.05.2005. P3 - Photocopy of acknowledgement receipt No. 2102. P4 - Photocopy of post cover. P5 - Photocopy of reply notice dated 26.05.2005. P6 - Photocopy of the letter to the Sub Inspector of Police, Neyyattinkara.
P7 - Photocopy of complaint dated 14.10.2005 to the Inspector General of Police.
III OPPOSITE PARTY'S WITNESS : NIL IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS : NIL PRESIDENT
......................Smt. Beena Kumari. A
......................Sri G. Sivaprasad | | 
