For the complainant -In person.

FINAL ORDER/JUDGEMENT

SHRI SWAPAN KUMAR MAHANTY, PRESIDENT

This is an application u/s.12 of the C.P. Act, 1986.

            The brief facts as set out in the complaint are that the complainant being a retired person for self employment for Gold Advertisement engaged OP, Quiker India Pvt. Ltd. (Advertising Agency) to give advertisement in their Net Circulation open to the public. Sri Dipankar Das, representative of OP visited the office of the complainant on 17.08.2018 and narrated the nature of business, deals agency of insurance for the purpose of livelihood. The representative of OP assured the complainant that they will provide 10 Gold Advertisement and will circulate for 10 days each, 100 per advertisement in 10 days and verbally assured to supply list of candidates from the circulation for information and record,  assured to call sufficient number of candidates on the Mobile to contact the concerned person and also assured to give relaxation / extra days subject to extension of 12 Gold package.

Based on the above discussions the  complainant paid Rs.3,810/- by cheque  for 12 Gold Advertisement to the representative of the OP  on 28.08.2018 and the OP  encahsed  the said  cheque  and  advertisement was  in circulation in two different  Mobile numbers. First advertisement was given on 01.09.2018 for the period from 10.09.2018 to 20.09.2018 and the second phase was put in circulation on 10.09.2018 but the representative of OP did not come in spite of repeated request for third circulation. The OP did not maintain time schedule of Advertisement for which site was blocked, not mentioned the age of the candidates, not attended for second phase meeting with the representative of the OP. Last two advertisements were blocked for 2 days and 100 nos of candidature per advertisement is also foiled due to non mentioning of dates which mis-match his business for which suffered loss. There is deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OP. Hence, the consumer complaint.

            Despite   service of notice the OP did not turn up to contest the case. As such, the case has proceeded ex parte against the OP.

Decision with reasons

            Upon taking into account of the consumer complaint and also considering on overall assessment and evaluation of the evidence as well as documents furnished by the complainant, it is found that the complainant engaged the OP to give advertisement in Quiker Net Circulation and being satisfied discussion with the representative of the OP, complainant paid Rs.3,810/- for 12 Nos. of Gold Advertisement. First and second circulation was put into circulation on 01.09.2018 and 10.09.2018 respectively. It is also evident from the record that third circulation dated 26.09.2018 was found blocked for two days. As a result, the complainant sustained financial loss. It is also evident from the record that the OP has chosen not to contest this complaint by not filing Written Version. There is no evidence on the part of the OP to rebut the deposition of the complainant. Therefore, we have no option but to justify in relying upon the testimony of the complainant. Once the complainant has discharged the initial burden of proving deficiency in service then burden lies on the OP to prove that there was no deficiency in service  regarding third  circulation dated 26.09.2018. It is pertinent to mention here that in the prayer portion of the consumer complaint complainant has prayed for compensation and litigation cost of Rs.50,000/- for damage of his business but in the affidavit he claimed his profession as retired person. The complainant has taken double standard regarding his profession though the complainant has claimed that he is carrying on business for earning livelihood by way of self-employment.

            It is settled principle of law that the compensation should be commensurate with loss of suffered and it should be just fair and reasonable and not arbitrary.

            For the reasons stated above, we have no hesitation in holding that the OP was negligent in publication of third circulation dated 26.09.2018. Thus, the complainant is entitled to get relief against the OP.

            In the result, the case merit succeeds in part.

            Hence,

ORDERED

That the complaint case be and the same is allowed in part ex parte against OP with litigation cost of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only.

The OP is directed to refund Rs.3,810/- (Rupees three thousand eight hundred ten) only along with  litigation  cost to the complainant within 45 days from the date of this order.

OP is further directed to pay compensation of Rs.500/- (Rupees five hundred) only for mental agony to the complainant within the stipulated period, in default, liberty be given to the complainant to put the order in execution.