BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,

ERNAKULAM.

Date of filing : 09/12/2011

Date of Order : 29/03/2012

Present :-

Shri. A. Rajesh, President.

Shri. Paul Gomez, Member.

Smt. C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

C.C. No. 680/2011

Between

And

O R D E R

A. Rajesh, President.

1. Shortly stated, the case of the complainant is as follows :

The complainant is a regular subscriber of Malayala Manorama daily since 1976. The 1^st opposite party is the agent of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. The facts being so, on 01-12-2011, the 1^st opposite party has claimed an additional amount of Rs. 4/- in the monthly subscription bill for November 2011. On enquiry, the 1^st opposite party has stated that the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have authorised all their agents to collect an amount at their discretion as service charge from their subscribers. Accordingly, the complainant contacted the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties and they intimated that they have not authorised their agents to collect any additional amount than the price fixed by them. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties deemed to have colluded with the 1^st opposite party with an intention to bye pass the law of the land for their benefit. Thus, the complainant is before us seeking the following reliefs against the opposite parties :

1. To declare the claim and collection of service charges from the complainant is illegal and irregular.

2. To direct the opposite parties to resume and restore the uninterrupted issuance of Malayala Manorama daily and other publications and periodicals.

3. To direct the opposite parties to refund the additional charges collected towards service charge with interest to the complainant.

4. To direct the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties to take appropriate action against the agents who violate the directions of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

5. To pay the costs of the proceedings to the complainant.

2. The version of the 1^st opposite party :

On 01-12-2011, the 1^st opposite party approached the complainant for the subscription amount of the daily for the month of November 2011 for the price of the Malayala Manorama calender for the year 2012 and for the price of the news paper daily for 01-12-2011. The total bill for the same was Rs. 140.75, but the complainant paid only Rs. 140/-. The 1^st opposite party never demanded or accepted any additional amount from the complainant as alleged by him. Since the 1^st opposite party is in acute shortage of delivery boys, the 1^st opposite party stopped the delivery of the daily to the complainant.

3. The defense of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties :

The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are unnecessary parties to the complaint. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties have not aurhorised any agent to levy surcharge amount over and above the subscription amount. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

4. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1 was marked on the side of the complainant. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the complainant and the 1^st opposite party who appeared as parties in person and the learned counsel for the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties.

5. The points that arose for consideration are :

1. Whether the complainant is liable to pay service charges to the opposite parties?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to get restored the issuance of Malayala Manorama daily?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to get refund of the additional charges collected from him towards service charge with interest?

4. Whether the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are in obligation to take any action against the 1^st opposite party agent?

5. Whether the complainant is entitled to get costs of the proceedings from the opposite parties?

6. Point Nos. i. and ii. :- According to the complainant, he had been subscribing the Malayala Manorama daily since 1976. It is stated that the subscription amount of the Malayala Manorama daily for a month is Rs. 121.75. it is further stated that as per Ext. A1 receipt, the 1^st opposite party has collected Rs. 4/- than that of the normal subscription amount. The 1^st opposite party maintains that he has stopped the delivery of the Malayala Manorama daily to the complainant's area due to the lack of man power. He contends that he had collected Rs. 4/- in excess for the price of the newspaper dated 01-12-2011.

7. Admittedly, the price fixed by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties for the Malayala Manorama daily is Rs. 121.75/- per mensum, which includes the commission for the agent. The demand for additional amount if any in excess than that of the maximum retail price fixed by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service. The contention of the 1^st opposite party that he has levied Rs. 4/- more in Ext. A1 for the supply of the news paper for 01-12-2011 is untenable especially since, the complainant has been paying the subscription amount on a monthly basis. So we are of the opinion that the complainant is entitled to get the Malayala Manorama daily for the price fixed by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties. The 1^st opposite party has stopped the delivery of the news paper, since the complainant refused to pay the service charges as demanded by the 1^st opposite party. The 1^st opposite party is contractually liable to deliver the news paper hereafter for the price fixed by the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties wherein the 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties cannot be held responsible. These points answered accordingly.

8. Point No. iii. :- Nothing is before us to show that the 1^st opposite party had been receiving service charges from the complainant. So, the demand of the complainant to refund the service charges from the 1^st opposite party is unsustainable in law. Rejected hence.

9. Point No. iv. :- The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties are the printer and publisher of Malayala Manorama daily, they have appointed the 1^st opposite party only as their agent to deliver the publications to their subscribers which is his own responsibility. However, being the principle of the 1^st opposite party, the 3^rd opposite party is liable to look after the prompt delivery of their publications to their subscribers.

10. Point No. v. :- Neither any convincing reason nor any evidence is forthcoming on the part of the 1^st opposite party for the non-delivery of the news paper in question to the complainant. The above conduct of the 1^st opposite party has compelled the complainant to knock at the doors of this Forum necessarily, which has no other go but allow for costs of the proceedings. We fix it at Rs. 1,000/- considering the consumer's right and cause.

11. In the result, we partly allow the complaint and direct as follows :

1. The 1^st opposite party shall promptly deliver the Malayala Manorama daily to the complainant with immediate effect.

2. The 2^nd and 3^rd opposite parties shall take appropriate action against the 1^st opposite party, if he violates the above direction.

3. The 1^st opposite party shall pay Rs. 1,000/- to the complainant by way of costs of the proceedings.

The order shall be complied with, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29^th day of March 2012

Sd/- A. Rajesh, President.

Sd/- Paul Gomez, Member.

Sd/- C.K. Lekhamma, Member.

Forwarded/By Order,

Senior Superintendent.

A P P E N D I X

Complainant's Exhibits :-

Opposite party's Exhibits :: Nil

=========