DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, NORTH-WEST
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
CSC-BLOCK-C, POCKET-C, SHALIMAR BAGH, DELHI-110088.
CC No: 402/2014
D.No._______________________ Dated: __________________
IN THE MATTER OF:
VIPIN GUPTA,
S/o LATE SH. SHYAM NATH GUPTA,
R/o A-17, ANTRIKSH APARTMENTS,
SECTOR-14-EXTENTION,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085. … COMPLAINANT
Versus
1. MANOJ YADAV NEWS AGENCY,
H. No.-15, NAHARPUR, SEC.-7,
ROHINI, DELHI-110085.
2. THE OFFICER INCHARGE,
RMD-CITY SALES,
THE TIMES OF INDIA GROUP
BENNETT, COLEMAN & Co. LTD.,
10, DARYA GANJ, NEW DELHI-110002. … OPPOSITE PARTY(IES)
CORAM:SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
SH. BARIQ AHMED, MEMBER
MS. USHA KHANNA, MEMBER
Date of Institution: 03.04.2014
Date of decision:04.06.2020
SH. M.K. GUPTA, PRESIDENT
ORDER
1. The complainant has filed the present complaint against OPs under the consumer protection act, 1986 thereby alleging that the complainant is a regular reader of newspapers of the Times of India Group namely Nav Bharat Times (NBT), The Times of India (TOI) &
CC No. 402/2014 Page 1 of 9
Economics Times (ET) and used to take NBT & ET from Monday to Friday and TOI with NBT for Saturday & Sunday and the newspapers were supplied to the complainant by the vendor i.e. OP-1 at the premises of the complainant and he is the only newspaper vendor allowed to enter the residential society for the distribution and the payment is done against the supply of the newspapers on a monthly basis and the photocopy of the newspaper’s cutting showing the printed price is reproduced as TOI of Rs.5/- or Rs.8.50 with NBT, NBT of Rs.4/- or Rs.8.50 with TOI (Saturday) and TOI of Rs.5/- or Rs.9/- with NBT & NBT of Rs.4.50 or Rs.9/- with TOI (Sunday). The complainant further alleged that up to the supply for the month of August-2012, the payment was done as per the demand raised by the vendor without any verification, however, for the month of September-2012, when the vendor came to collect the payment on 06.10.2012, the complainant noticed that he had charged an excess amount than the printed price on the newspapers by not providing the discount of 50 paisa on buying the NBT and TOI collectively for 10 days in a month (Saturday & Sunday) as mentioned on the top right side of the newspapers. The complainant further alleged that the complainant protested for the same to the vendor and he replied that the combo offer price (discounted price) was applicable only if both the newspapers were taken for the whole month and the complainant told him that no such thing was mentioned on the newspapers
CC No. 402/2014 Page 2 of 9
where the price was printed and then the vendor gave the complainant the mobile no. 9810698412 of Sh. Vishnu Chopra, Sr. Officer of The Times of India Group (Marketing & Circulation branch) and at the same time called him by his own mobile to explain the dispute and asked the complainant to talk to him and when the complainant called him he said that the vendor was correct that the price printed on the newspapers was on monthly basis and not for daily purpose and therefore, it was applicable only for the customers who take both the newspapers for the whole month and the complainant argued about where was as there was no (*) mark for any terms & conditions at the printed price and he gave the complainant mail ID and took mine and disconnected the phone by saying that he will mail the full reply with the complete ‘Combo Offer’ policy in black and white with in a day or two. The complainant further alleged that seeing the petty difference of only Rs.5/- and relations since last 15 years with the vendor, the complainant paid the bill under protest and made a complaint to the Times of India Group, copies to Sh. Vishnu Chopra. Thereafter, no reply was received from Sh. Vishnu Chopra as promised and also in response to the complaint dated 06.10.2012 but again in the month of November-2012 for the supply of month of October-2012, the vendor charged on the same pattern and this time the complainant asked the vendor to supply a detailed bill according to the cash memo, so that the complainant can pursue the matter
CC No. 402/2014 Page 3 of 9
with the higher authorities as 23 ET Monday to Friday @ Rs.3/-= Rs.69/-, 23 NBT Monday to Friday @ Rs.4/- = Rs.92, 4 TOI with NBT Saturday @ 9/- = Rs.36/- and 4 TOI with NBT Sunday @ Rs.9.50 = Rs.38/- total Rs.235/- and whereas the bill as per the printed price on the newspapers should be as 23 ET @ Rs.3/- = Rs.69/-, 23 NBT @ Rs.4/- = Rs.92/-, 4 TOI with NBT Saturday @ Rs.8.50 = Rs.34/- & 4 TOI with NBT Sunday @ 9/- = Rs.36/- total Rs.231/-. The complainant further alleged that inspite of the repeated complaints and reminders to the persons from pillar to post on telephones and e-mails and the complainant neither received any reply from any one nor the detailed bill from the vendor so far. The complainant further alleged that as the complainant refused to pay more than the printed price, the vendor with the active connivance of the Times of India Group stopped the supply of the newspapers from mid-November-2012 onwards and as there is no other vendor allowed in the housing society, the complainant is without any newspaper for the last 17 months and the complainant waited for a long time for a proper action and reply but both OPs failed to do needful, still the complainant decided to give a final opportunity to OPs to present the policy, if any, to the complainant and mention the terms & conditions with the printed price so that there is no dispute with any customer at the time of the payment and for this the complainant visited the Corporate office of the Times of India Group situated on 05.03.2014 where
CC No. 402/2014 Page 4 of 9
after hearing the complaint they asked the complainant to go to the concerned office situated at 10, Darya Ganj, New Delhi and accordingly, the complainant went to the office and met with Rohini, Delhi area Senior officer Sh. Pankaj Vashistha (RMD-City Sales) and handed over the initial complaint e-mail copy with annexure and discussed the matter and he promised the complainant that he will give a reply up to the satisfaction and expedite the matter at the earliest and positively start the supply from the next day. The complainant further alleged that when there was no action for the next one week, the complainant again sent e-mail to him on 12.03.2014 and he replied on 13.03.2014 with positive notes but unfortunately nothing has happened so far and if we calculate the total excess amount charged every month individually it will be very small but if we calculate it collectively, considering the large circulation (according to the survey of 2013 in India the daily readership of TOI & NBT was 7.253 & 2.480 million respectively) it comes to a huge amount and it seems that the combo offer is only a profit manipulation stunt and the complainant accordingly alleged that there is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs.
2. On these allegations the complainant has filed the complaint praying for direction to OPs to resume the regular supply against printed price with immediate effect as well as compensation for
CC No. 402/2014 Page 5 of 9
causing mental agony, harassment and financial loss suffered by the complainant due to negligence and over charging by OPsand also sought litigation cost.
3. OPs have been contesting the case and filed their separate replies. OP-1 in his reply submitted that for information news paper bills were handed over to the complainant for 2 months of September-2012 for Rs.233/- and for October-2012 of Rs.235/- as per company rates and as regard news paper Nav Bharat Times & Times of India for Saturday & Sunday, company do not supply to the vendor as per present rates and extra news paper has to be purchased on 50 paisa more payment from the company to meet the customer’s requirement and the same amount has been charged. OP-1 further submitted that Sh. Vishnu Chopra, Senior Officer of the Times of India Group (Marketing and Circulation branch) clarified that the vendor was correct that the price printed on the news papers was applicable only for the customers who take both the news papers for the whole month and company instructed to stop the supply of newspaper with immediate effect till he made the payment of Rs.233/- & Rs.235/-.
4. In the written statement of OP-2 submitted that it is the common knowledge that the cost of printing of newspaper is quite high as compared to the price which a newspaper reader is paying and the newspapers are able survive as newspapers are recovering its cost from the advertisement which are printed in the newspaper and the
CC No. 402/2014 Page 6 of 9
newspaper vendor is buying the newspapers from the depot of OP-2 and is giving orders in advance for the newspaper which clearly provide for newspaper in combined or single and the combined newspaper is booked only if order is placed for 1 month and there is no written terms & conditions of the available with OP-2 as OP-2 is not into business of selling/distribution of newspaper. OP-2 further submitted that there is no deficiency in service on the part of OP-2 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
5. The complainant filed separate rejoinders and denied the submissions of OPs and submitted that OPs have taken a misleading plea.
6. In order to prove his case, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and also filed written arguments. The complainant also placed on record copy of newspapers cutting of TOI & NBT showing printed price, copies of cash memos no.4398 for September-2012 of Rs.233/- & no.9821 for Ocotber-2012 of Rs.235/- issued by OP-1, copies of e-mail dated 06.10.2012, 13.10.2012 & 12.03.2014 and copy of reply dated 13.03.2014 sent by OP-2 through mail to the complainant.
7. On the other hand on behalf of OP-2, Sh. Vishnu Dutt Chopra,Authorized Representative ofOP-2 filed his affidavit in evidence. OPs also filed written arguments.
8. This forum has considered the case of the complainant in the lightof evidence of both the parties and documents placed on record by
CC No. 402/2014 Page 7 of 9
the complainant. The case of the complainant has remained consistent and undoubted. There is nothing on record to disbelieve the case of the complainant.
9. OP-2 has not disputed the newspapers TOI & NBT which have been placed on record by the complainant. On the right side top portion of the newspapers the price of TOI is printed as Rs.4.50/- or Rs.8.50/- with NBT and the price of NBT is written as Rs.4.50/- or Rs.8.50/- with TOI. Similarly, OP-2 has not disputed the combo price of the 2 newspapers as Rs.9/-. The sole defence taken by OP-2 is that this price/offer has been given to the customers for supply of newspapers for one month basis and not for daily basis.
10. We have considered the defence of OP-2. There is no such mention on the newspapers that combo offer regarding price of the 2 newspapers is printed if the newspapers are taken on monthly basis. In the absence of any such printed words on the newspapers OP-2 cannot come forward with the plea that offer of reduced price is being given to the customers for booking of newspapers for monthly basis. Accordingly, OPs cannot charge excess amount from the customers/complainant and it shows unfair trade practice and deficiency in service on the part of OP-2.Accordingly, OP-2is held guilty of unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.
11. Accordingly, OP-2isdirected as under:
i) To pay an amount of Rs.10,000/- as compensation towards mental
CC No. 402/2014 Page 8 of 9
agony and harassment caused to the complainant which includes cost of litigation.
12. The above amount shall be paid by OP-2 to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order failing whichOP-2 shall be liable to pay interest on the entire awarded amount @ 10% per annum from the date of receiving copy of this order till the date of payment. IfOP-2 fails to comply with the order within 30 days from the date of receiving copy of this order, the complainant may approach this Forum u/s 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
13. Let a copy of this order be sent to each party free of cost as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.
Announced on this 4th day of June, 2020.
BARIQ AHMED USHA KHANNA M.K. GUPTA
(MEMBER) (MEMBER) (PRESIDENT)
CC No. 402/2014 Page 9 of 9
UPLOADED BY : SATYENDRA JEET
