Order by:

Sh.Amrinder Singh Sidhu,  President.

1.       The  minor complainant through her father  has filed the instant complaint under section 12 of  the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (as amended upto date) on the allegations that he purchased 8^th Class books/ Copies from the Opposite Party  Shop on 30.03.2019 vide invoice No. 4360 amounting to Rs.4760/-. The Complainant further alleges  that after reaching home, she found that pages bearing No. 17 to 32 were missing in the purchased book. The Complainant has to purchase a new book from Opposite Party  on 26^th April, 2019 worth Rs.499/- from the Opposite Party  again. The Complainant visited the shop of the Opposite Party  and requested either to replace the said book or to refund the price, but the Opposite Party  did not pay any heed to the request of the Complainant rather insulted the Complainant in the presence of other customers on the shop and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  Vide instant  complaint, the complainant has sought the following reliefs.

a)       To direct the Opposite Parties either to replace the book Srijan Social Sciences or to refund the price of the said book, which has been received by the Opposite Parties alongwith other books and to pay  Rs.20,000/- on account of compensation for causing mental tension, harassment and deficient service or any other relief to which this District Consumer Commission,  may deem fit be granted.

Hence, the present complaint is filed by the Complainant  for the redressal of her grievances.

2.       On notice,  Opposite Party  appeared through counsel and contested the complaint  by filing the written version taking preliminary objections therein inter alia that the complaint is not maintainable; that  the complainant has got no locus standi to file the present complaint;  that the complaint is absolutely false and frivolous. The Complainant purchased the books from the Opposite Party  on 30.03.2019 and only for the first time, she came to the shop of Opposite Party  only on 26.04.2019 after 27 days and in one book, there are many cuttings and book became old, but however, the defective book if any can be exchanged within 2-3 days in same fresh condition. But the Complainant raised the issue and not ready even to accept the proposal given by the Opposite Party  to insert pages No. 17 to 32 in the book. On the other hand, the Complainant and her father created scene on the shop and also created  hindrance in the sale of the books in those days and such, the reputation of the Opposite Party  has been damaged.    Moreover, if there is any error occurred at the time of publishing the book, it is the negligence/ error on the part of publishers and not the seller, but the Complainant has not arrayed a party to the publishers of said book. The Opposite Party  has sold the book after receiving the same from the publishers in same condition as it is received by the Opposite Parties, so if there is any defect in the book, then only the publisher is liable for the same and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.   On merits, the Opposite Party took up the same and similar pleas as taken up by them in the preliminary objections and hence, it is prayed that the complaint of the complainant is liable to be dismissed with special costs.               

3.       In order to prove her case, the complainant has tendered into evidence the affidavit of her father  affidavit Ex.C1 alongwith copies of documents Ex.C2 to Ex.C4 and closed his evidence.

4.       On the other hand, to rebut the evidence of the complainant, Opposite Party also tendered  into evidence affidavit of Sh.Ashok Kumar Mittal Ex.OP1, copy of detail of the bill Ex.OP2 and closed the evidence on behalf of the Opposite Party. 

5.       We have heard the attorney of the Complainant and ld.counsel for the Opposite Party and also gone through the documents placed on record.

6.       The attorney of the Complainant  has mainly reiterated the facts as narrated in the complaint  and contended that she purchased 8^th Class books/ copies from the Opposite Party  Shop on 30.03.2019 vide invoice No. 4360 amounting to Rs.4760/-. It is further contended that after reaching home, the Complainant found that pages bearing No. 17 to 32 were missing in the book. The Complainant has to purchase a new book from Opposite Party  on 26^th April, 2019 worth Rs.499/-. The Complainant visited the shop of the Complainant and requested either to replace the said book or to refund the price, but the Opposite Party  did not pay any heed to her request rather insulted the Complainant in the presence of other customers on the shop and as such, there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.

7.       On the other hand, ld.counsel for the Opposite Party has repelled the aforesaid contention of the attorney of the complainant on the ground that  the Complainant purchased the books from the Opposite Party  on 30.03.2019 and only for the first time, the Complainant  came to the Opposite Party shop only on 26.04.2019 after 27 days and in one book, there are many cuttings and book became old, but however, the defective book if any can be exchanged within 2-3 days in same fresh condition. But the Complainant raised the issue and not ready even to accept the proposal given by the Opposite Party  to insert pages No. 17 to 32 in the book. On the other hand, the Complainant and her father created scene on the shop and also created  hindrance in the sale of the books in those days and such, the reputation of the Opposite Party  has been damaged.    Moreover, if there is any error occurred at the time of publishing the book, it is the error on the part of publisher and not the seller, but the Complainant has not arrayed a party to the publishers of said book. The Opposite Party  has sold the book after receiving the same from the publishers in same condition as it is received by the Opposite Parties, so if there is any defect in the book, then only the publisher is liable for the same and there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party.  

8.       From the aforesaid contention of the Opposite Party, it is clear that with regard to missing  while printing of book in question, the seller can not be held guilty/ negligent, rather it is publisher who published the said book and the deficiency if any, lies on the part of the publishers only and not on the part of the seller of the said book. It is not the case of the Complainant that the said book is published by the Opposite Party at its own. But in the instant complaint, the Complainant has not arrayed the said publisher of the said book as necessary party.  As such, we don't find any deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party. However, the Complainant can lodge  his claim with regard to missing of pages while printing of the book in question against the publisher.

9.       In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this District Consumer Commission finds no merit in the complaint and the same stands dismissed. However, the Complainant is at liberty to get his/ her grievances redressed by lodging claim against the publisher of the book in dispute, if he/ she so desires in accordance with law.  Keeping in view the peculiar circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs. Copies of the order be furnished to the parties free of cost. File be consigned to record room after compliance.

10.     Reason for delay in deciding the complaint.

This complaint could not be decided within the prescribed period because the State Government has not  appointed any of the Whole Time Members in this Commission for about 3 years i.e. w.e.f. 15.09.2018 till 27.08.2021 as well as due to pandemic of COVID-19.

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:08.02.2022.