IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANNUR Present: Sri.K.Gopalan: President Smt.K.P.Prethakumari: Member Smt.M.D.Jessy: Member Dated this, the 8th day of October 2009 CC.197/2008 A.V.Sasidharan, Payyannur Theru, P.O.Payyannur Complainant (Rep. by Adv.P.V.Madhu) Soumini, News Agent, C/o.Manorama Books, Near Old Post office, Temple Road, P.O.Payyannur (Rep. by Adv.P.V.Shaji) Opposite party O R D E R Smt.K.P.Preethakumari, Member This is a complaint filed under section 12 of consumer protection Act for an order directing the opposite partiers to refund Rs.20/- the price of defective magazine along with Rs.1000/- as compensation with cost. The complainant’s case is that his daughter is a student of VIIIth Std and had purchased a magazine by name “School Master” which is being published by “V” guide publishers from the opposite party by paying Rs.20/- as its price and obtained bill No.1393 dt.16.6.08. But when the complainant gave the magazine to his daughter at home, she found that the magazine is defective and useless to English medium students. On going through the pages the complainant could note that many of the lessons were those for Malayalam medium students. Further in the mathematics chapter it was seen the lessons were given partly in Malayalam language and partly in English. So on the same day itself the complainant went to the shop of the opposite party and the defects in the magazine were brought out and the complainant requested to take back the useless magazine and to deliver another one. Instead of replacing he had abused the complainant. So the complainant was constrained to purchase a new magazine. This caused much mental pain and sufferings and loss. So the complainant had issued a registered notice through his counsel to the opposite party to take back the magazine and to return back its price with compensation. But instead of replacing the magazine she had issued a reply stating false contentions. Hence this complaint. On receiving the notice from the Forum opposite party has appeared through his counsels, Adv.P.V.Shaji and K.V.Manoj kumar and filed her version stating the following contentions. The opposite party denies the purchase of the magazine from her shop and disputed the bill. The opposite party also denies the averments that the complainant on the same day itself went to the shop of the opposite party and the defects in the magazine were brought to the notice of the shop keeper etc. They further denies the contentions that the opposite party insulted the complainant in the general public and hence the complainant cause mental agony. According to opposite party she is only an agent of Malayala Manorama news paper and other publications published by Malayala Manorama printing and publishing Co. Ltd. and hence she is only dealing with the products of the above company and every products sold by opposite party is kept as display to general public for their easy access and perusal and hence one can get himself satisfied of the content of the books before purchasing the same and it is a normal practice followed by opposite party to substitute the defective books if any supplied by her. More over, she used to issue a bill in the name of Manorama book stall since the opposite party is dealing with the products of Malayala Manorama printing and publishing company. So the bill produced is a manipulated one and the complainant has neither purchased any book nor rendered any service to the opposite party and hence the complainant is not a consumer. Complaint has been filed for the purpose of tarnishing the reputation of opposite party. Selling other products other than the Malayala Manorama products is against the agreement between opposite party and Malayala Manorama Printing and publishing company. So the complaint has been filed by the complainant in collusion with the third party to cancel the licence issued by the Malayala Manorama.so the opposite party has no liability and hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed. Upon the above contentions the following issues have been raised for consideration:- 1. Whether there is any deficiency on the part of opposite party? 2.Whether the complainant is entitled to receive any relief? 3. Relief and cost. The evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of PW1 and Exts.A1 to A6. Issues 1 to 3 The case of the complainant is that the opposite party has sold him a defective magazine of school master by receiving Rs.20/- and abused when he had approached for returning back. The complainant contended that he had purchased the book after made enquiry. The complainant had produced Ext.A1 bill for Rs.20/- dt.16.6.08. But the opposite party disputed Ext.A1 by saying that it is not a bill and it does not contain signature of the party and no seal to the effect that the amount was paid. But it contains a seal “Manorama Book stall, Payyannur”. But we can see that giving a piece of paper instead of bill without even a signature and seal is the usual practice of the shop owners while purchased for a considerably lesser amount. More over Ext.A4 also has no signature or seal. Further the opposite party has not produced any document to show that Ext.A1 is not the receipt and they are usually issues bill with signature and seal or any counterfoil of the bills. Instead of this the opposite party simply disputed the document. The opposite party has not come before the Forum and adduced oral or documentary evidence to prove his contention . On perusal of Ext.A2 and A3 it can be seen that A2 is a defective one. It s true that printer and publisher were not arrayed as a party. Even if it is so, the opposite party from whom the book was purchased has duty bound to replace the defective one. So we are of the opinion that the Ext.A1 was issued by opposite party as per the purchase bill of Ext.A2 and hence there is some deficiency on the part of opposite party for which she is liable to compensate. So the opposite party is liable to refund the value of Rs.20/- along with Rs.500/- as compensation and cost of the proceedings and the complainant is entitled to receive the same. In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite party to refund Rs.20/-(Rupees Twenty only) along with Rs.500/-(Rupees Five hundred only) as cost and compensation to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order against the opposite party under the provisions of consumer protection act. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- President Member Member APPENDIX Exhibits for the complainant A1.Bill dt.16.6.08 issued by OP A2.Defective book A3.Correct book A4. Bill dt.16.6.08 issued by Malabar printers, Payyannur A4.Copy of the lawyer notice sent to OP A6.Reply notice Exhibits for the opposite party: Nil Witness examined for the complainant PW1.Complainant Witness examined for the opposite party: Nil /forwarded by order/ Senior Superintendent Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kannur
......................GOPALAN.K
......................JESSY.M.D
......................PREETHAKUMARI.K.P | | 
