By. Smt. Bindu. R, President:
This complaint is filed by Prabhakaran, Eenthanamoola House, Payyampally Post, Koyileri, Mananthavady against Moosa, Kanjayi House, Koolivayal amsom, Agent Mathrubhumi Daily and Madhu, Area Manager (Mathrubhumi Newspaper) Kalpetta alleging deficiency of service and unfair trade practice against the Opposite Parties
2. The Complainant alleges that the Opposite Party No.1 had charged an amount of Rs.270/- against Rs.255.50/- on the subscription charges of Mathrubhumi daily from the Month of December 2022 to 31st March of 2023. The Complainant further states that the action of the Opposite Party in charging a higher rate as subscription charges for the daily has caused mental worry and hardship to the Complainant and therefore requested to issue direction to Opposite Party to pay compensation of Rs.1 Lakh to the Complainant.
3. Upon notice from the Commission, Opposite Party No.1 appeared and filed version and Opposite Party No.2 was ex-parte in the case. In the version the Opposite Party No.1 stated that the Complainant is staying at a distance of 10 km away from Koolivayal and the Opposite Party No.1 is the agent of Mathrubhumi daily at Koolivayal. It is also stated that the agent at Koilery stopped the distribution of Mathrubhumi daily where the Complainant resides and thereafter the Complainant approached the Opposite Party No.1 and requested him to distribute newspaper for the Complainant and his brother and the Opposite Party No.1 had then informed the Complainant that he has to travel 10 km to distribute the newspaper and the Complainant had agreed to pay an amount of 50 paise extra as expenses for fuel which was mutually agreed and the Opposite Party No.1 had given the newspaper and the bill according to that. The Opposite Party No.1 further stated that the Opposite Party is not responsible to pay any amount as compensation.
4. Complainant had produced Ext.A1 to A4 from his side. Ext.A1 is Bill dated 31.01.2023 for Rs.260/-. Ext.A2 is Bill dated 28.02.2023 for Rs.260/- and Ext.A3 is copy of Google pay transaction dated 02.03.2023 for Rs.270/- paid to Moosa Kooliavyal and Ext.A4 is the bill dated 13.03.2023 for Rs.117.00/- for 9 days. There is no documentary evidence from the side of Opposite Party. Complainant was examined as PW1 and Opposite Party No.1 was examined as OPW1.
5. The Commission has made a thorough examination on the overall records and also on the contents of the complaint and version.
6. The following are the main points to be analyzed in this case.
- Whether the Complainant has sustained to any loss, unfair trade practice or deficiency of service from the side of Opposite Parties?
- If so, the quantum of compensation to be paid to the Complainant?
- Cost of proceedings.
7. On perusal of complaint it is seen that the Complainant had subscribed to Mathrubhumi daily from Opposite Party No.1 for a few months and Opposite Party No.1 issued the receipts for subscription charges. The allegation of the Complainant is that the Opposite Party No.1 had charged extra amount from the Complainant. The Complainant has not made available before the Commission any records to prove that the delivery of newspaper at any distance by the agent from his station without charging any extra amount what so ever the distance from the office of the agent to the house of the subscriber. Moreover the Complainant has produced two bills Ext.A1 and A2 in which it can only be seen that an amount of Rs.260/- each is charged by the Opposite Party No.1 as subscription charges. The value of a single copy of Mathrubhumi newspaper is seems to be as Rs.8.50 from Monday to Saturday and the value of single copy of the above newspaper on Sunday is Rs.9/- ie the total subscription charges in a month having 30 days shall come to Rs.221 + 36 = Rs.257/-. As far as the Month of January is concerned there are 31 days and the charges shall be Rs.257 + 8.50= Rs.265.50/-. Whereas the amount charged in the bill is only Rs.260/- as per Ext.A1. As per Ext.A4 bill issued to the Complainant an amount of Rs.117.00/- is charged for 9 days, though the bill is for that period from 01.03.2023 to 13.03.2023 there are 13 days.
8. The Complainant had also produced Ext.A3 which is a Google pay Receipt for Rs.270/- but according to the Complainant Ext.A3 is the receipt for payment made by his brother as subscription fee, who is not a party to the proceedings and not examined by the Complainant. During cross examination OPW1 deposed that the Complainant agreed to pay Rs.290/- considering the distance of 12km to the house of the Complainant and thus he started distribution of the newspaper to the Complainant Hence the argument of the Complainant that the Opposite Party had charged huge subscription charges has not been proved and moreover the Complainant has failed to prove that he has sustained to mental agony and loss due to the action of the Opposite Parties which enables him to claim Rs.1 Lakh as compensation from the Opposite Parties.
9. As a result, there is no merit in the complaint and therefore Point No.1 is found against the Complainant and hence we do not analyzed Point No.2 and 3.
In the result, the Consumer Case is dismissed.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by him and corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 8th day of February 2024.
Date of Filing:-20.03.2023.
PRESIDENT : Sd/-
MEMBER : Sd/-
APPENDIX.
Witness for the Complainant:-
PW1. P. Prabhakaran. Retired Government Servant.
Witness for the Opposite Parties:-
OPW1. Moosa. K. Newspaper Distribution.
Exhibits for the Complainant:-
A1. Agency Receipt. Dt:31.01.2023.
A2. Agency Receipt. Dt:28.02.2023.
A3. Copy of Google pay transaction. Dt:02.0.3.2023.
Exhibits for the Opposite Parties:-
Nil.
PRESIDENT :Sd/-
MEMBER :Sd/-
/True Copy/
Sd/-
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
CDRC, WAYANAD.
Kv/-
