BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,
ERNAKULAM.
Date of filing : 01/03/2011
Date of Order : 25/06/2011
Present :-
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.
Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.
C.C. No. 170/2011
Between
K.T. Devssykutty, | :: | Complainant |
Kunjeluparambil Veedu (Komattu), Madaplathuruthu, Moothakunnam P.O., Pin – 683 516. |
| (By party-in-person) |
And
1. S.A. Shibu, S/o. Anthappan, | :: | Opposite parties |
Srambikal Veedu, St. Sebastian Kappela, Madaplathuruthu, Moothakunnam P.O., 2. Circulation Manager, Malayala Manorama, Panampilly Nagar, Kochi. |
| (By parties-in -person) |
O R D E R
A. Rajesh, President.
1. The case of the complainant is as follows :
The complainant is a subscriber of Malayala Manorama Daily newspaper. He has been promptly paying the price of the daily to the 1st opposite party, who is the agent of the 2nd opposite party the printer and publisher. In February 2011, the 1st opposite party demanded excess price than the price fixed by the 2nd opposite party. Since the complainant was reluctant to pay the excess price the, 1st opposite party has been delivering the news paper by 9 a.m. instead of 6 a.m. The complainant is entitled to get the daily for the price fixed by the 2nd opposite party. Hence this complaint.
2. Version of the 2nd opposite party :
The claim raised by the 1st opposite party for excess amount from the complainant was without the consent of the 2nd opposite party. As and when, the 2nd opposite party received a complaint from the complainant, they issued strict direction to the 1st opposite party not to claim any extra amount and to distribute the daily without claiming any additional amount. The 2nd opposite party had published notice on 01-01-2011 informing the customers not to encourage the unjust and illegal claim of some of the agents.
3. The 1st opposite party appeared in person, he did not file any version. No oral evidence was adduced by the parties. Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the complainant. Heard the complainant who appeared in person and the counsel for the 2nd opposite party.
4. The only point that came up for consideration is whether the complainant is entitled to get the daily newspaper for the price fixed by the 2nd opposite party or not?
5. During the proceedings, the complainant filed I.A. 282/11 dated 28-05-2011 for interim relief. The 1st opposite party undertook to deliver Malayala Manorama daily to the complainant every morning at around 7 a.m. at the price fixed by the 2nd opposite party. His undertaking was recorded. Since the grievance of the complainant is sufficiently redressed the proceedings in this complaint stand closed with a direction to the 1st opposite party to uphold his undertaking without deficiency.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 25th day of June 2011.
