DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

WEST TRIPURA :  AGARTALA

 

CASE   NO:   CC- 355/2022

 

Sri Pritam Deb,

S/O- Sri Habul Deb,

West Joynagar, Dashamighat,

P.S. West Agartala, P.O. Agartala,

West Tripura- 799 001.        ..............Complainant.

 

-VERSUS-

 

1. Sales Manager,

Arihant Publications(India) Ltd.,

Ramchhaya 4577/15, Agarwal Road, 

Darya Ganj, New Delhi, 

P.O. Darya Ganj, P.S. Darya Ganj,

Central Delhi- 110002.

 

2. Proprietor/Partner/ Authorized Signatory,

of Books Corner, Brahma Bipani Market,

Ronalsay Road, Ground Floor of 

Punjab National Bank, Battala Branch,

P.O. Agartala, P.S. West Agartala,

West Tripura- 799001. ................Opposite Parties.

 

    __________PRESENT__________

 

 SRI GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

      WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA. 

 

DR (SMT) BINDU PAL

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER 

DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

  WEST TRIPURA, AGARTALA.

 

SRI SAMIR GUPTA

MEMBER,

  DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA. 

 

C O U N S E L

For the Complainant : Sri Mirdul Kanti Arya,

  Sri Saugat Datta,

  Learned Advocates. 

 

For the O.P. No.1 : None Appeared.

 

For the O.P. No. 2 : Sri Rakhal Majumder, 

   Sri Debesh Chandra Roy,

   Learned Advocates.

 

ORDER  DELIVERED  ON:   15/02/2023.

F I N A L    O R D E R

Facts of the case led to file the complaint petition by Sri Pritam Deb (here-in-after referred to as “the Complainant” against Sales Manager, Arihant Publications(India) Ltd.(here-in-after referred to as “the 'O.P. 1”) & Proprietor/Partner/Authorized Signatory of Books Corner, Ronaldsay Road, Agartala(here-in-after referred to as the “O.P. No.2”) which are epitomized as under:

2. The complainant bought a book from O.P. 2. It is alleged that the book purchased by the complainant do have a mention on the cover page of the book as ''Completely Revised Edition''. It is the contention of the complainant that the book publisher did not mention the publication date, and, therefore, the complainant failed to assess the actual date of revising this edition of the book. Since the complainant was desperately needed this book for his use, he had to purchase the book due of having no other option. The complainant contended that since the book did not have mention of the date of edition and, selling of such book by the O.P. 1 and 2 is to be termed as adoption of an unfair trade practice by them. Hence, this case.

3. Today the case was fixed for argument and, accordingly, Learned Counsels from the side of the complainant as well as from the side of the O.Ps argued the case.

4. We have heard argument and found that the complainant had inspected the book beforehand while purchasing the same. He had every knowledge prior to purchase of the book that the book did not have any mention of the date of revised edition/publication. The complainant while purchasing the book could notice that it was a completely revised edition, as expressed by the publisher of the book, which was apparent on the front cover-page of the book. Despite knowing the alleged defect of the book the complainant went for purchasing the same. After purchase of the book the complainant preferred to file the complaint petition before this Commission.

5. We have traveled over the documents submitted by both the parties and on appreciation the same we are of the view that the seller at the time of selling the book did not conceal or hide anything in respect of the book sold. Therefore, no attempt was made by the O.P. 2 to mislead the complainant. The complainant had the liberty and option not to purchase the book as the alleged defect in regard of the book was manifested in the book itself. Yet, the complainant bought the book and thereafter filed this petition before this Commission which is completely unwarranted. Therefore, the allegations of the complainant does not hold good as the O.P. 1 did not adopt any unfair trade practice at the time of selling of the book to the complainant. Therefore, the complainant's petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. In view of the points mentioned here-in-above, the complainant has failed to prove his case which is why the case of the complainant fails. Thus, the complaint petition stands dismissed.

Accordingly, the case is disposed of. However, no order is passed as to cost.   

  Supply copy of this Final Order free of cost to the complainant and the Opposite parties.

Announced.

 

 

SRI  GOUTAM DEBNATH

PRESIDENT,

DISTRICT CONSUMER  DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,  AGARTALA

 

 

 

 

DR (SMT)  BINDU  PAL

MEMBER, 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES 

REDRESSAL COMMISSION, 

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA

 

 

SRI SAMIR  GUPTA

MEMBER,

 DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES  

REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

WEST TRIPURA,AGARTALA.