By Smt. Padmini Sudheesh, President:

 

            The complainant’s case is as follows: Seeing a press report in the Malayala Manorama newspaper on 6.2.07 applied for the application for the entrance examination of M.Ed. by post to the 2^nd respondent along with a D.D. for Rs.20/-. As per the paper report the last date of receipt of filled application to the University was on 9^th. Hence it was believed that it was on 9^th March. But it was realized from the 2^nd respondent’s letter dt. 22.2.07 that the date of acceptance of application was over. As a result of the incomplete information published in newspaper the complainant has occurred monetary loss and mental agony. Hence the complaint is filed to make good the loss.

 

            2. The version filed by the respondents-1 and 2 is as follows: The Kerala University had issued a press note on 2.2.07 regarding the entrance examination for Kerala M.Ed. It was clearly stated that the applications will be received up to 9^th February 2007. This date was clearly stated in the newspaper except ‘Malayala Manorama’. Hence the complainant is only responsible for the losses occurred to him and dismiss the complaint.

 

            3. The averments in the counter filed by the 3^rd respondent are as follows: The newspaper does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act and the news and press reports cannot be considered as service. The complainant is not a consumer. The press release of Kerala University dated 6.2.07 that the last date of receipt of application was 9^th and hence it was clear that the last date of acceptance of application was 9.2.07. The presumption of the complainant that the last date of receiving application was 9.3.07 has no relevance at all. The complainant has not submitted the application in time and it is only because of the negligence of the complaint resulted in rejecting the application. Hence dismiss the complaint.

 

            4. The points for consideration are:

(1)   Is the complainant eligible for compensation as prayed?

(2)   Other reliefs and costs.

            5. The evidence consists of Exts. P1 and P2 and R1 and R2.

 

            6. Points-1 & 2: The complainant applied for the application form to apply for the entrance examination of M.Ed. He was applied after seeing the Ext. P1 report. According to him, the paper report published in the 3^rd respondent’s newspaper was misleading and it was only stated in the report that the last date for acceptance of application was 9^th. Hence the respondents-1, 2 and 3 are responsible for the monetary loss and mental agony faced by him. So the complainant claimed to make good the loss. The counter is that when the last date for receiving application is shown as 9^th in a news report published on 6.2.07 it must be on 9.2.07. If the complainant presumed it as 9.3.07 it is the fault of the complainant. Hence the sole responsibility of monetary loss and mental agony vest up on the complainant itself. The Ext. R2 series is the copy of news items published in other newspapers in this regard. In all these press report it is clearly stated that applications are invited for the M.Ed. entrance examination on February 25. Hence if there occurs any doubt about the date of receiving application the complainant would have enquired about it by referring other newspapers. At the same time the applications are invited for the entrance examination for a postgraduate courses. So the applicant should have taken it seriously and enquire about the last date of accepting application from other credible centers. More over the complainant alone is responsible for presuming the date of receiving application as March 9th. There is no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice is seen. The complainant himself is responsible to think that the last date was march 9^th. There is nothing to mislead that date as March 9^th. So the respondents are not liable to compensate the complainant.

 

            7. In the result, complaint stands dismissed.