By Jayasree Kallat, Member:

 

            Complainant, P.N. Prakasan has filed this petition under Sec. 12 f the Consumer Protection Act. Complaint is filed under Sec.12 (1) © r/w Sec.2 (1) (b) and (c) on behalf of the complainant himself and all other consumers having the same interest with the complainant. Attracted by the wide publicity regarding the publishing of a reference book under the name and style Britannica Malayalam Encyclopedia, the complainant had placed order of the said book with the IVth opposite party under the pre publication scheme. To boost the sale of the book the first opposite party had made a pre publication offer with a few benefits including reduction in price for those who place orders prior to the publication. The face value of the book was Rs.2750/- and under the pre publication scheme the price was Rs.1850/- that too in instalments. Opposite party had given vide publicity regarding the reliability, authenticity and dependability of the book through Mass media, brochures, pamphlets and bulletins. It was stated that the said book was the ultimate reference book and reputation of encyclopedia Britannica which is widely believed to be the authoritative brand in imparting information also persuaded, the complainant to join the pre publication scheme. On using the book the complainant has found that the same is totally worthless as a reference. A reference is meant to provide correct information. But the book was full of blunders and was not at all reliable and cannot bear the name reference. The book also contained gross mis-information. The complainant has noted umpteen number of mistakes. The mistakes identified by the complainant are furnished as schedule-1. The arrangements of entries, head words and gross references is improper and unscientific. There were several omissions and errors in the gross references noted by the complainant which indicates indifference and culpable negligence on the part of the opposite parties which is furnished as schedule-2. A Dozen of errors are produced as schedule-3. Apart from the mistakes blunders and misinformation the opposite parties have adopted  unfair and deceptive trade practices. To boost the sale of book opposite parties had made claims. Opposite parties have collected pre publication orders by misleading the public. In the pre publication advertisement campaign it was stated that the reference book was a collection of 30000 articles specially selected from Encyclopedia Britannica. Contrary to these promises the published reference named Malayalam Encyclopedia is a improper and unscientific translation of a single volume reference book, namely Britannica Concise Encylcopedia. There are several errors noted in small number of entries dealing with Kerala or India. The Malayalam Britannica is not adapted to the needs of Keralites as promised by the Co-publisher, in the interview published in the current books bulletin. Literary and political figures of Kerala are missing in this book claimed to be published especially and exclusively for Malayalees. Most of the matters referred are not pertaining to Kerala, but all of them are related to the United States. The translation of Britannica contains is incomplete. A person who has no knowledge of Malayalam one Theodore Pappas has edited this Malayalam book. There has been utter irresponsibility and disregard for the interests of the customers. The complainant believes that three erring volumes of this Malayalam Britannica Encyclopedia could do immense harm to the society. Books have lasting and strong influence on the society. They will remain in libraries, schools, households etc. for many years. It is a heinous crime to impart misinformation to impressionable learners and the public in general. Due to the negligence, deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of opposite parties much loss injury and hardship was caused to the complainant. Hence he has filed this petition seeking several reliefs like to refund the purchase price with interest to the complainant and other consumers of this publication and to pay compensation to the complainant etc. etc. 

 

            The opposite party filed a version denying averments in the complaint except those that are expressly admitted. The complainant has pointed out the mistakes occurred in the pre publication copy. Complainant has been able to bring out only a few mistakes thus making it clear that the rest of the entries in the book are correct and authentic.   The opposite party had published only the first Eddition of the book. The book was prepared by experts in the field. Opposite party has not given any misleading advertisements. As the book in question was the first Eddition it is only natural that errors have crept in. It is pointed that even the updated dictionary of National Biography of Oxford University Press contained mistakes. Opposite party has produced report published in the Hindu Daily on 7^th March 2005, that the first addition of the book has come out and certain mistakes have crept in which were later correct in 300 pages erratum. The complainant had bought the book giving the cost for the pre publication rate which is less than cost of the post publication rate. The complainant also had paid the money in instalments which benefited the complainant. The book provides much benefit to the needs of the readers as it is Malayalam translation of Encyclopedia Britannica an exhaustive reference book. When a person buys for a pre publication offers and discounts it is bought by the customers with the understanding that the said book may not be free from errors. It is a calculated risk on the part of every person who purchased the said book under pre publication scheme. The complainant could have waited for the publication of the book but instead he had availed the pre publication offer. The opposite party has not intentionally tried to mislead the public. Opposite party has not given any misleading advertisements. The advertisements are to be taken in their correct perspective. There was no deficiency on the part of opposite parties. Opposite party has rectified the errors and mistakes crept into the first Eddition. To have errors in a book is a common phenomena more so in the first Eddition. It is to rectify the error that the system of providing errata has emerged which is published in a reprint or next Eddition. The relief sought by the complainant is not sustainable. This Forum has no jurisdiction to grant the relief sought in the petition. Hence opposite party prays to dismiss the petition with cost to opposite party.

 

            The point for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get any relief?

 

            The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext.A1 to A17 were marked on complainant’s side. No oral evidence adduced by the opposite party and Ext.B1 and B2 were marked on opposite parties’ side.

 

            The case of the complainant is that attracted by the advertisement of the book published by the opposite parties he purchased a pre publication copy of a reference book under the name and style Britannica Malayalam Encyclopedia. The face value of the book was stated to be Rs.2750/-. Under the pre publication scheme the price payable was Rs.1850/- in insalments.    On using the book the complainant found the book to be of poor quality in content and presentation. According to the complainant the book was totally worthless and non reliable. It is also alleged by the complainant that the entries were not properly arranged, gross reference indications are incorrect, and translation is very poor and also inferior editing. According to the complainant there were a lot of mistakes and factual errors which the complainant had pointed out. Opposite parties have denied the allegations in the complaint. Opposite party submitted that the defects pointed out were of very minor in numbers. According to the opposite party the complainant has pointed out the mistakes in pre publication Eddition. The opposite parties have later on corrected the mistake in erratum of 300 pages. Opposite party also pointed out that the complainant has paid the pre publication rate only.   The Forum has looked into the evidence and documents of both the complainant and heard both sides in detail. We have noted the mistakes that have crept in the first Eddition. We do appreciate the huge effort taken by the complainant to bring into the notice these defects, which were useful even to the opposite party as they have stated in the version that opposite parties are thankful to the complainant for pointing out the mistake which the complainant thinks to be. According to the opposite party such mistakes happens while compiling huge volumes. Opposite party has pointed that even updated dictionary of National Biography of Oxford University contended mistakes. We equally appreciate the effort taken by the opposite party for rectifying the mistakes and publishing the erratum. Opposite parties have produced documents during the time of hearing which is a judgment dated 27-2-08 in Appeal 714/04 which is a similar case as the above mentioned case of the complainant herein before Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. In the judgment it is clearly mentioned that the mistakes pointed out do not appear to be of sufficient gravity to order to stop the publication of the book as suggested which is one of the relief sought by the petitioner. But as the petitioner was not satisfied by the quality of the book we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get back the money he has paid for the book.

 

            In the result the petition is partly allowed directing the opposite parties to pay back the sum of Rs.1850/- the cost of the book to the complainant along with a compensation of Rs.1000/- and costs of Rs.500/- within the one month from the date of receipt of the order.

 

Pronounced in the open court this the 18th day of May 2010.

 

 

            SD/- PRESIDENT                   SD/- MEMBER                       SD/-MEMBER

 

 

 

APPENDIX

 

Documents exhibited for the complainant.

 A1. Mistakes noted by the complainant in Ext.A17 Encyclopaedia Britannica.

 A2.  Mistakes noted by the complainant in Ext.A17 Encyclopaedia Britannica

 A3. Mistakes noted by the complainant in Ext.A17 Encyclopaedia Brittannica

 A4. Photocopy of D.C. Books New Magazine for the month of September 2002.

 A5. Photocopy of D.C. Books New Magazine for the month of December 2002.

 A6. Photocopy of the Current Books bulletin magazine for the month of September     

         2002.

 A7. Photocopy of the Current Books bulletin magazine for the month of December     

         2002.

 A8. Article downloaded from Internet.

 A9. Mistakes noted by the complainant in Ext.A17 Encyclopedia Britannica.

A10. Newspaper article.

A11. Pathram Megazine for the month of June2004.

A12. News Paper article in Kerala Kaumuthi.

A13. Pamlet issued by Forum against misinformation, Civil station, Calicut.

A14. Articles against the mistakes seen in Encyclopedia Britannica.

A15. Articles attacking the mistakes in Encyclopedia published in a journal  

Padabhedam.

A16. Photocopy of the preface of the book published by 1^st O.P.

A17. Three copies of Encyclopedia Britannica.

 

 

Documents exhibited for the opposite party.

B1. Application form for the Britannica Malayalam Encyclopedia Pre-publication.

B2. Copy of the agreement between O.P.1 and O.P2.

 

Witness examined for the complainant:

 

PW1. Prakashan (Complainant)

Witness examined for the opposite party.

            None

 

                                                                                                Sd/- President

 

                                                // True copy //

 

Petition filed on : 22-02-2005.

Date of order       : 18-05-2010.

 

(Forwarded/By order)

 

 

SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT.

 

 

 

 

 

.