DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRFESSAL FORUM. BOLANGIR.
……………………
Presents:-
1.Sri P.Samantara,President.
2. Sri G.K.Rath, Mermber.
Dated,Bolangir the 30th day of March 2016.
C.C.No.75 of 2015.
Raghunath Rath, son of late Nabin Kumar Rath, At- Raghunath Para,Titilagarh.
P.O/P.S-Titilagarh, Dist- Bolangir
.. .. Complainant.
-Versus-
1.M/s. Morning Star (A unit of MSB Publisher Pvt.Ltd) 4626/18.
At-Ansari Road,Daryaganj, New Delhi-110055.
2.The Principal, St.Anne’s School, Titilagarh, P.O/P.S-Titilagarh,
Dist- BOlangir.
.. .. Opp.Parties.
Adv. for the complainant- None.
Adv.for the O.P.No.1 - A.Mohapatra,B.Mishra and R.Mishra.
Adv. for the O.P.No.2 - None.
Date of filing of the case- 07.10.2015
Date of order - 30.03.2016
JUDGMENT.
Sri P.Samantara, President.
1. Succinctly put, the complainant is the father of his son named Amrit Gourav Rath, being a student of St.Anne’s School, Titilagarh in class-X. The complainant also stated, the school sales the books under syllabus prescription in each year against the consideration.
2. The complain raised in history book that supplied by the publisher and Management of St.Anne’s School, Titilagarh and the defect is that the book contained information that the battle of Buxar was taken place in the year 1757 mentioned in Chapter-I, at page-10 and correct is that it happened on dt.22.10.1764.So the incorrect information being a historical fact can’t be callously set aside in stating as a printing mistake, which may entail any student to be failed being a class-X.
3. The complainant also averred, every guardian is not so knowledgeable to bring it to surface or made it public only the vigilant parents can do the public awareness omission, which is neither frivolous nor vexatious rather deligent and smart in public awareness campaign. Such shortcomings in the history book is a failure on the part of O.P-1 and O.P-2 in rendering perfect service to the student. Non rendering amounts deficiency in service under consumer Protection Act,1986.Praying the O.Ps must give undertaking that such mistake will not be repeated again. Relied on “Total History & Civics 10” contended portion in photo copy and affidavit.
4. In pursuant to notice the O.Ps appear and filed the version in their way.
5. The O.P.1 averred, the publisher in all and every efforts has been made bonafidely to avoid mistakes and omission as far as possible. That it is contended, the author and publishers have not given any representation and warranty with respect to the accuracy and correctness of the contents of the book in dispute.
6. The book is not prescribed by the examination board. Hence no liability shall or may be on the part of the publisher, if it is used by the School without any recommendation of the board.
7. Further contending that on 11.09.2015 the history teacher corrected the printing mistake, the complainant ‘s son being a X- standard student, neither suffers contradiction or confusion in mind.
8. Again, the author has declared that “ All suggestion for the improvement of this book will be gratefully acknowledged and the publisher declared that “it has not been possible to trace some of the sources”. The complainant has not given scope to the publisher or author to rectify it, but with an ill motive to extract money from the publisher. There is no cause of action to file the case. It is a human error and cannot be avoided or zero all the time. Also averred in the revised edition the error has been rectified, the case has been filed with malafide intention and the case be dismissed for filing such a frivolous and vexatious complaint.
9. The O.P.2 appeared in admission that the complainant has supplied with the book and reads in class-x of the institution. And it is further admitted that the answering authority has called report from Mr.Prashant Kumar Behera the class teacher on the subject of history and found the mistake as raised is committed one in the chapter-I, page 10 of the prescribed book. Subsequently the mistake has been corrected and true fact is taught by the concerned teacher so no confusion prevail and the O.P is no more comes under liability. Under the above noted circumstances stated, the complaint petition has devoid of merits and the same be dismissed against this O.P in the interest of justice.
10. Heard the complainant at length and perused the materials on record.
11. On the outset, primafiacie in substantive the petitioner is a consumer both as a student giving fees and subscribing the text books ear marked in the syllabus of Class-X. And text is an ICSE course mode of certification book titled as “Total History and civics 10” and last edition relates to 2014 in prescription for ICSE Exam in and after 2015, The publication relates to “Morning Star” (A Unit of MSB Publishers Pvt Ltd.) Daryaganj, New Delhi.
12. Regrettably, the mistake raised by the complainant is admitted and inconsequence the matter has been corrected by the concerned class teacher and intimated to the publisher to make correct in the revised edition, so entire gamut of story is not ruled by the O.P.1 being institution teaching the students in ICSE course pattern.
13. The OP-2 placed the revised edition for perusal and made compared with old mistake ridden publication. So the contention made by the publisher has no basis to stand and it is assert the publication is marketed for only ICSE pattern courses read in the entire country with an option. Such mistake relates occurrence of Buxar war in the year 1764, in the age of objective type question and certain cases of minus marking, the mistake can’s be diminutive at either end. Again publisher can not resiled from his responsibility in giving immaculate, perfect information or data on syllabus contained planned subject. It is also seen the “Total History and Civics-10” is a text book of history and Civics for the ICSE Examination and admittedly, the preface avers that the book is written according to the new syllabus in History and Civics prescribed by the council, so also the first edition 2002 to Ninth edition 2014.No such defect either has been raised or revised at publishers end, hence attempt made in raising the issue in a text book can not be no way called as frivolous or vexatious rather conscientious approach in benefit of others, such shortcoming is a deficiency of service within the meaning of the Act.
14. In view of the above noted findings, the O.Ps are in fault and liable to pay the petitioner and also to large number of unidentified consumers sustained harassment, mental agony, failings in exam and loss for a protracted period of time, in consequence thus it is ordered;
ORDER.
The O.P.1 is liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 2,000/- (Rupees Two thousand) only as compensation for the loss sustained inclusive of legal expenses within 30 days of this order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum will accrue thereon from the date of filing of the case till realization.
(ii). Further O.P.2 is liable to pay the petitioner a sum of Rs 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only towards compensation inclusive of legal expenses within 30 days of this order, failing which interest @ 9% per annum will accrue till realization and with an apology letter to the institution within the above time frame.
ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN FORUM THIS THE 30TH DAY OF MARCH 2016.
(G.K.Rath) (P.Samantara)
MEMBER. PRESIDENT.
