D.O.F. 01.04.2011
D.O.O. 18.01.2014
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM KANNUR
Present: Sri. K.Gopalan : President
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. : Member
Sri. Babu Sebastian : Member
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2014.
C.C.No.115/2011
Rubeena Shamsudheen.
d/o. Shamsudheen
‘Rubeena Mahal’ : Complainant
P.O. Paral, Thalassery
Kannur District.
(Rep. by Adv. Pramod Krishnan)
1. Purushothaman
Proprietor cum Manager
Phoenix Offset Press
Chonadam, Thalassery
2. A.V. Balakrishnan
Partner, Phoenix Offset Press
‘Kamala Nivas’, P.O. Meloor,
Thalassery – 670 661
3. N.P. Venugopal
Partner, Phoenix Offset Press
‘Adithya’, Nr. S.N. Park, Kannur : Opposite Parties
4. K.N.N. Unni
Partner, Phoenix Offset Press
‘Kavya Pilli Mana’, Cheranallur P.O.
Cochin – 682 034
(OP No.1 to 4 rep. by Adv. K. Mahesh)
5. M. Radhakrishna Marar
Partner, Phoenix Offset Press
‘Krishna Bhavan’,
Peravoor P.O.
Kannur District – 670673
O R D E R
Smt. Sona Jayaraman K. Member
This is a complaint filed under Section 12 of Consumer Protection
Act for an order directing the opposite parties to refund `13,000 to the complainant and to pay `25000 as compensation.
The case of the complainant in brief is as follows. The complainant has got much aptitude in Novel writing and she contacted the opposite party to print her novel ‘Hridayadeepam’ for publication. It was her first attempt also. The opposite party agreed to print 500 copies of Novel for an amount of `20,500. An amount of `13000 was given in advance. The opposite party agreed to hand over 50 copies of the Novel on or before 01.02.11 in connection with the releasing function of the Book. But the opposite party had handed over only one copy of the book before releasing function instead of 50 copies he agreed to give. Moreover, four pages from Chapter 9 was missing in the book and it was material omission as far as the reader of the book is concerned and the said incident has caused severe mental agony to the complainant. That shows there is deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. Hence this complaint.
After receiving the complaint notice was issued to opposite party. Opposite party appeared before the Forum and filed version with a contention of non-joinder of necessary parties. So opposite parties No.2 to 5 were impleaded and opposite parties No.2 to 4 filed version before this Forum. Opposite Party No.5 has not appeared before the Forum and he was declared exparte.
The case of opposite parties are that when the complainant approached the opposite party with a view to entrust the printing work of her novel ‘Hridayadeepam’, opposite party informed her that his press was heavily overloaded and therefore he wanted the complainant to entrust the work to any other press. But the complainant insisted and compelled the opposite party to undertake the printing work and as per the understanding opposite party agreed to deliver two copies of book on the releasing function. The balance copies will be handed over only after two weeks. Although the complainant was instructed to come for proof reading, she failed to turn up for that. Two copies of the book were handed over to the complainant before the releasing function and as per request of the complainant 60 more copies were delivered to the complainant on that day itself. After delivering these copies, the omission was noticed by the complainant and as informed by the complainant opposite party agreed to rectify the defect in balance copies. So the opposite party rectified the defect and printed 438 copies out of which 5 copies were delivered to the friend of complainant. The balance copies were not taken by the complainant and she has not paid the balance amount also. The opposite party further contented that they have received only an amount of `5,000 from the complainant and the complainant has not given `13,000 as alleged. As the opposite party has printed all the copies as per quotation complainant is liable to give the balance amount to the opposite party and the complaint has to be dismissed.
On the basis of above pleadings the following issues have been raised for consideration.
- Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties?
- Whether the complainant is entitled for the remedy as prayed in the complaint?
- Relief and cost.
The evidence in the above case consists of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 and Ext.A1 to A4, Ext.B1 to B4 and MO1.
Issues No.1 to 3 :
Admittedly the novel written by the complainant is her first attempt as a writer. Ext.A1 is the novel which contains the omission. On going through the pages of book it can be seen that some pages are missing and some pages are printed upside down. That itself is the clear evidence of gross negligence and deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties. Opposite party has contended that the complainant has not turned up for proof reading and it was a default on her part. When the complainant was examined she had stated that “Computer Centre Padma writer എന്നിവരുടെ അടുത്ത് നിന്ന് proof read ചെയ്തതിനു ശേഷമാണ് opposite party ക്ക് കൊടുത്തത്.” Being an established press it is the duty of opposite party to take reasonable care when they print a novel that too the first attempt of the complainant. So that contention of opposite party did not find any merit. Since the fault is caused out of absence of reasonable care it is clear that there is deficiency in service from the part of opposite party.
As the first issue has been answered in favour of the complainant, now it is to be decided about the remedy. It is admitted by the opposite parties that `5000 was received a advance by them. The writings and the signature in the second half of Ext.A2 document has been disputed by the opposite party. Then the burden falls upon the complainant to prove that `8000 was also given to opposite party and the signature in Ext.A2 document is that of opposite party No.1 by taking expert evidence. But the complainant has not taken any steps for that. When the complainant was cross examined she had stated that “12.02.2011- നു 8000/- രൂപ കൊടുക്കുന്നത് ശ്രീജേഷ് മാഷ് മാഷ് കണ്ടിരുന്നു.” But he was not examined before the Forum to prove the transaction. So there is nothing before this Forum to prove the contention of the complainant that `8000 was also given to opposite party. So the opposite party is liable to return only`5000 to the complainant.
It must be viewed that for a writer the publication of her first book is very valuable and the success of that novel will take her to heights in that field. Here the reckless attitude of opposite party in the printing of the complainant’s book has shattered her future as a writer. So the mental agony of the complainant can not be weighed in terms of money. So we are of the opinion that opposite party is liable to give an amount of `10000 as compensation alongwith litigation cost of `1500.
In the result, the complaint is allowed directing the opposite parties to return `5000 (Rupees Five Thousand only) which has received by them in advance and to given an amount of `10000 (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensation along with `1500 (Rupees One Thousand Five Hundred only) as cost of this proceedings. The opposite party No.1 to 5 shall jointly and severally liable to comply the order within one month from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the order as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
Dated this the 18th day of January, 2014.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
President Member Member
APPENDIX
Exhibits for the Complainant
A1. Novel ‘Hridayadeepam’.
A2. Receipt dated 03.01.2011.
A3. Lawyer notice dated 01.03.2011.
A4. Acknowledgment card.
Exhibits for the opposite party
B1. Reply notice dated 07.04.2011.
B2. Postal receipt.
B3. Acknowledgment card.
B4. Corrected copy of Novel.
Witness examined for the complainant
PW1. Complainant
Witness examined for opposite party
DW1. P.V. Purushothaman
Material Objects for the Court
MO 1. C.D. of Novel ‘Hridayadeepam’.
/forwarded by order/
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
