DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KANDHAMAL, PHULBANI

                                                                                       C.C NO.32 OF 2016

Present:   Sri Rabindranath Mishra       - President.

                        Miss Sudhiralaxmi Pattanaik - Member.

                  Sri Purna Chandra Tripathy     - Member.

Laxmi Narayan Choudhury,

Aged about 40 years,

Son of Sri Jagannath Choudhury,

Circular Road, Phulbani( Near Film Hall),

PO/PS: Phulbani Town, Dist: Kandhamal                    ………………………….. Complainant.

                          Versus .

1.Sri Rama Kanta Mallick,

Son of Unknown,Circulation Manager”Prameya”

Summa Real Media Pvt. Ltd.,Plot No.662,

Jagamara, Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar- 751030

Dist: Khurda, Odisha

2.Dilip Kumar Sahu,

Son of Inknown,

Manager, “Prameya”,Berhampur,

Prameya Office, Tata Benj Chhak, Berhampur,

At/PO: Berhampur, Dist: Ganjam.

3.Sri Sibaram Mishra,

Son of Unknown,

General Manager, “Pramaya”

Summa Real Media Pvt. Ltd.,

Regd Office, Plot No. 195, Dharma Vihar,

Khandagiri, Bhubaneswar- 751030,

Dist: Khurda, Odisha.                                                 ……………………………..  OPP. Parties.

For the Complainant: Sri Bhagaban Mohanty, Advocate and his Associates

For the OPP. Parties: Self.

Date of order: 30-03-2017.

                                                                                                O R D E R

                                            The case of the Complainant in short is that he had deposited Rs. 15,000/- on 31-08-2016 in the account of Summa Real Media Pvt Ltd through Punjab National Bank of Phulbani and communicated to O.P no.2  to send Daily News Paper Prameya through Berhampur Office. Accordingly he received prameya news papers as per oral statement of the O.Ps. But on 08-09-2016 the O.P No.1 gave a letter to him to treat the same as notice wherein it is stated that the supply of paper will be closed from 10-09-2016.As the said letter of O.P No.1 was illegal and arbitrary and no opportunity was given to the Complainant to put forth his answer, he is suffering both mentally and

                                                                                                     -2-

financially being an unemployed person. The action of the O.Ps amounts to unfair trade practice. So, the Complainant has filed this complaint against the O.Ps for a direction to the O.Ps to supply Prameya News paper to him as per the contract. The O.Ps also be directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for his mental and financial sufferings along with Rs. 5,000/- as cost of litigation.

                                                The O.P No.2 & 3 were set exparte in this case as they failed to file their version in spite of getting notice from this Forum. The case of O.P No.1 as per his version is that the Complainant is not a Consumer under section 2(1)(d) of C.P Act and the complaint filed by the Complainant is not coming under unfair trade practice and the same is frivolous or vexatious complaint U/s 26 of the C.P Act. Hence, the Complaint is liable to be dismissed with a cost of Rs. 10,000/-

                                                 During course of hearing, the Complainant filed an affidavit in token of his evidence. He was examined and Exit-1 to 5 were marked upon the documents on behalf of the Complainant. We have heard the Complainant as well as his advocate.  We have gone though the complaint petition, the affidavit filed by the complainant, the documents filed by him and the version filed by O.P No.1.

                                                No documents are available in the record in support of the case of the O.Ps.

                                                It is stated in  Para 3 of the version of O.P No.1  that “on 08-09-2016 the Complainant was directed by the O.Ps to attend the office within two days failing which supply of newspaper would be closed from 10-09-2016. But as he did not turn down before 10-09-2016, the supply of news paper was closed from 10-09-2016”But on perusal of the letter dated. 08-09-2016 of O.P No.1 vide exit-3, nothing was reflected in the said letter as mentioned in Para 3 of the version. So, the plea of O.P No.1 is completely after thought, rather the case of the Complainant is admitted by O.P No.1. When the Complainant had deposited Rs. 15,000/- before the company of the O.Ps on 31-08-2016, he is entitled to get the news paper from the O.Ps. The deposited money was not refunded to the complainant by the O.Ps after closing of the supply of papers to him on 10-09-2016.In the said situation, it can not be said that the Complainant is not a Consumer under the O.Ps. The O.Ps are supplying Daily News papers for the purpose of promoting their sell but they adopt unfair method which is unfair in nature and no opportunity was given to the Complainant even to file his showcase regarding the subject matter of the concerned letter vide Exit-3. In the above circumstances the Complaint filed by the Complainant is allowed against the O.Ps on contest against O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P No.2 & 3.

                                                The O.Ps are jointly and severally directed to supply Daily News Papers ‘Prameya’ to the Complainant as before. In case of failure the Complainant is entitled to get  Rs. 15,000/- from the Opp. Parties  with 12% interest per annum  since 10-09-2016 till the date of payment along with compensation of Rs. 5,000/- and Rs.3000/- towards cost of litigation within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order by the Opp. Parties.

                                                With the above direction the C.C is disposed of. Supply free copies of this order to both the parties at an early date.

           MEMBER                                                                             MEMBER                                                             PRESIDENT