Before the District CONSUMERS Forum:Kurnool
Present: Sri K.V.H.Prasad, B.A., LL.B., President
And
Smr C.Preethi, M.A., LL.B., Member
Sri R.Ramachandra Reddy, B.Com., LL.B., Member
Thursday the 3rd day of July,2003
C.D. No.29/2002
Mukhthar Ahmed,
C/o Lateef Kambadi Dargah,
Near Lai Masjid,
Kurnool District. . . . Complainant
-Vs-
M.Varaprasada Rao,
Classified Booking Staff,
Eenadu Somisetty Complex,
R.S. Road,
Kurnool. . . . Opposite party
O R D E R
1. This consumer dispute case of the complainant is under sections 11 and 12 of the C.P. Act seeking from the opposite party a suitable compensation to him besides ordering the opposite party to reinsert his advertisement for republishing it in Eenadu Sanday Classified.
2. The brief facts of the complainant’s case, as per his not verified compliant which is wanting due verification of its contents by the complainant are that the complainant with an intention to start a carrier in teaching spoken English by providing Home Tuitions for eaking his lively hood, given a relevant advertisement for its publication in “Eenadu Sunday Classifieds” dated 23.12.2001 along with his E-mail contact address as “Speak English @ Indian time com” by paying necessary charges of Rs.55/- to the opposite party. But the said material was published in Sunday Eenadu Classified dated 23.12.2001 as “Speak English @ India Times Com i.e., printing bold letters “S” in the work speak and “E” in the work English for small letters. A s the E-Mail does not receive bold letters their prospective mails blocked and the purpose of his giving said classified advertisement failed and left its bearing on his eaking lively hood.
3. The complainant encloses to his complainant for reliance the classified insertion order No.4006914 dated 10.12.2001 under which an amount of Rs.55/- was received by the opposite party from the complainant for causing said type of Eenadu Classified Advertisement on 23.12.2001 Kurnool Edition. It is marked as Ex.A1 for it appreciation in this case.
4. The opposite party who appeared in pursuance of the notice of this Forum as to the case of the complainant, filed his not verified written version disowning of any fault or mistake on his part as he merely forwarded the material of the text ascribed by the complainant to the concerned authorities for its necessary disposal i.e., for publishing. It further submits that in the absence of any specific and special instructions of the complainant as the normal procedure will be followed and that the word “English” being a pronoun the letter “E” in the word English was assigned capital letter. It alleges further that the complainant paid him Rs.50/- only instead of Rs.55/- promising the balance payment letter on and not paid the said due thereafter and resorted to this case in the Forum. It lastly submits that the website could be got on frequent trial of its user and hence the printing of the capital letters in the Supra said words does not make any words and bearing. As the case of the complainant without sufficient basis led to his mental agony seeks suitable compensation from the complainant seeking the dismissal of the complaint. It encloses to its written version for reliance the Xerox copy mater of advertisement provided by the complainant and copy of the advertisement published in Sunday Eenadu Classifieds, Kurnool District version dated 213.12.2001. The opposite party fields a sworn affidavit of his in reiteration of the defences taken in his written version in answer to the complainant’s case. Hence the above said document are marked as Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 for their appreciation in this case.
5. Hence, the point for consideration is whether the complainant has made out any deficiency of service on the part of opposite party towards him entitling him to the reliefs sought?:-
6. Even that the complainant remained absent throughout subsequent to the opposite party filling its written version and did not file any sworn affidavit of his in support of contentions of his invalid complaint, but as the complainant giving to the opposite party for publication in Sunday Eenadu Classified his advertisement for publication and issual of receipt by the opposite party to the complainant for Rs.55/- towards the publication of the complainant’s advertisement being not denied by the opposite party the point remaining only for consideration is not the diligent prosecution of the matter by the complainant, but the assessment of the available material to find out whether there was any deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant in causing the said publication.
7. The Ex.B1 the Xerox copy of the material scribed in proforma by the complainant shows the E-mail contract address is small letters as to wards “Speak English” @ India Times Com, but whereas the Ex.B2 relating to the publication of the said Classifieds of the complainant covered in Ex.B1 shows the commencement of the starting letters of words “Speak English” com by capital letters “S” “E” and “C” respectively. Irrespective of the fact whether the E-mail website of the computer allows the capital letters in to it for its user or not for having communication on the said address, the comparative perusal of the material in Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 indicates the Ex.B2 was not published as required in Ex.B1. Further when the material was scribed in the Ex.B1 in small letters the publisher must use common sence to understand the mind and the intention of the person who has given such advertisement for publishing and hence the allegation that the complainant did not left any specific instructions to publish in small letters appears to be a lame excuse to cover up in advertence and in at tentative conduct of the opposite party and its publisher. Hence the circumstances indicates the clear deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party towards the complainant by not publishing the advertisement to his instructions and expectations and thereby ensured the failure of its purpose to the complainant causing loss of his prospective earnings.
8. The terms and conditions printed in the reverse of the Ex.A1 vide its terms and condition at serial No.7 says of no liability of the opposite party for any loss or damages caused by error or inaccuracy in printing or omission to insert in the advertisement is casting an obligation to bring such errors or omissions to the notice of the advertisement department within 15 days of the publication of the advertisement and thereon on due verification of such complaints for publishing of its suitable corrigendum and no claims will be entertained for repeating the advertisement. This complaint being filed on 29.12.2001, in the absence of any material either in the complaint or otherwise as to the complainant’s bringing to the notice of the advertisement department the said error within 15 days of publication of the said advertisement, it appears that the complainant hastily resorted to the Forum for redressal without availing the privilege provided in Supra Stated the Sl.No.7 of the terms and conditions, the knowledge of which could be implied to the complainant by his conduct of receiving in Ex.B1 containing the said terms and conditions in token of his giving the said advertisement material for publishing and payment of the required fees charges for the same. If the complainant brought to the notice of the said advertisement department the said error in reference to the Ex.B1 which are in said publication appearing in Ex.B2 there would have been a possibility for issual of a suitable corrigendum in rectification of the said error to the benefit of the complainant. Therefore the complainant is not remaining entitled to the reliefs sought except to the extent permissible under Sl.No.7 of the terms and conditions appearing on the reverse page of Ex.A1.
9. Even on the receipt of the notice of the Forum as to the case of the complainant’s grievances as to the errors occurred in the publication of the material given by the complainant as advertisement for its publication in Eenadu Sunday Classified of Kurnool Edition the opposite party did not provide the benefit of the said terms and condition No.7 by causing publication of suitable corrigendum rectifying the aid error occurred in the said publication in the Ex.B2 and hence the opposite party is also remaining equally faulty in its expected service to the complainant in the said circumstances and hence not remaining, equally faulty in its expected service to the complainant in the said circumstances and hence not remaining entitled to any costs from the complainant.
10. Therefore, in the circumstances the ends of justice appears to be met if the opposite party is ordered to publish a suitable corrigendum for rectification of said error occurred in publishing correctly the material of Ex.B1 in Ex.B2 and hence the complaint is allowed without costs to any of the parties to the proceeding directing the opposite party to cause publication of a suitable corrigendum in Sunday Eenadu Classifieds, Kurnool Edition for rectification of the said error within a fortnight of the receipt of the order, in default the opposite party to refund the publication charges of Rs.55/- evidenced in Ex.A1 and Rs.50/- towards compensation with interest at 18% per annum from the date of the said publication till its realization.
Dictated to the Stenographer, Typed to the Dictation corrected by us, pronounced in the open Court this the 3rd day of July, 2003.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined
For the complainant: Nil For the opposite party: Nil
List of exhibits marked for the complainant:-
Ex.A1 The Classified instruction order (MMPL) No.4006914 dated 20.12.2001 issues by opposite party to the complainant.
List of exhibits marked for the opposite party:-
Ex.B1 The Xerox copy of Original matter given by the complainant of his own hand writing.
Ex.B2 Xerox copy of advertisement published of paper.
Sd/-
PRESIDENT
Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER
// Certified free copy communicated under Rule 4 (10) of the A.P.S.C.D.R.C. Rules, 1987//
Copy to:-
Complainant and Opposite parties :
Copy was made ready on :
Copy was dispatched on :
