The complaint petition U/s.12 of the C.P Act has been filed by the Complainant claiming towards the financial loss and compensation alleging deficiency-in-service by the O.Ps, where O.P No.1 is the Editor, Times of India, Bhubaneswar Edition, O.P No.2 is Publisher and Printer, Times of India, Bhubaneswar Edition situated at Jagatpur Industrial Estate, Cuttack and O.P No.3 is M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd., C/o. Sk. Md. Ali, the Owner of the Newspaper named Times of India, Bhubaneswar Edition situated at Jagatpur Industrial Estate, Cuttack.
Complainant’s case, in brief, is that the Complainant is a highly educated retired Sr. Class-I Gazzetted Govt. employee and also a Social Activist. After retirement, the Complainant mostly devotes his time in reading newspapers and other literary works. The Complainant subscribes the newspaper “The Times of India” and being an avid reader everyday morning anxiously waits for the newspaper. Reading the newspaper in the morning makes his day complete. In other words, the Complainant enjoys reading newspaper. But, reading newspaper i.e. The Times of India the Complainant is annoyed and irritated instead of getting pleasure on many occasions as the said newspaper, Bhubaneswar edition has been repeatedly off and on publishing the newspaper, where the first page is vertically half-cut to suit some or other advertisements. Due to the unsymmetrical in size of the pages, it is really difficult for the reader to hold the paper in his hands and to turn the pages. Reading this type of newspaper becomes extremely inconvenient, irritating and annoying since the half-cut page repeatedly slips out of one’s hands and makes the turning of the subsequent pages difficult for the news reader. The editorial print line appearing at the bottom of one of the pages is in such small, miniscule print/font size that no normal person with standard even perfect visibility will be able to read those letters/ lines. One has to use a magnifying lens in order to be able to read those lines. One wonders whether this print line is meant for reading information about the printing and publishing of the newspaper or for some other purpose. The relationship between the reader and the publisher is one of trust and belief, one wonders why all this secrecy. Media including the printing media are the vigilant protectors to safeguard the interest of the general public. So everything starting from the name of the Editor, Publisher, their phone numbers and address should be clearly and transparently mentioned in the newspaper so as to enable the reader to contact them for any grievances.
The Complainant with much difficulty and by using magnifying lens collected the e-mail address of “The Times of India”, Bhubaneswar edition and made e-mail complaints to the editor of the Times of India, Bhubaneswar edition on 06.01.2013, 16.02.2013 and 26.02.2013 regarding inconvenience caused due to the vertically half cut front page containing Advertisements and also about the small and miniscule editorial print line appearing on the newspaper. But, surprisingly the Complainant neither received any reply from the Times of India nor his complaint has been addressed or attended to by them. The Complainant being saddened by such callous attitude of the Bhubaneswar edition sent a complaint to the Secretary, Press Council of India, New Delhi on 07.05.2013 along with the required declaration form enclosing thereby some samples of such half cut front pages of Times of India edition dt.26.02.2013, 04.04.2013 and 26.04.2013 and e-mail complaint copy dt.06.01.2013 and 26.02.2013. The Secretary, Press Council of India sent an e-mail reply in response to the complaint made by the Complainant on 13.09.2013 from one Mr. K.N Pokhriyal, Section Officer, which revealed that the matter (complaint) has been treated as closed being outside charter, which means and includes the complaint sent by the Complainant is beyond the jurisdiction of the Press Council of India to adjudicate. Such E-mail reply by the Press Council of India also creates doubt about the relevance, significance and usefulness of that institution.
The Complainant was totally frustrated after receiving the e-mail reply dt.13.09.2013 from the Press Council of India. The Complainant suffered severe mental agony along with financial loss. The Complainant took all these hardship not for himself only but for the innumerable readers of Times of India, Bhubaneswar edition. However, the Complainant subscribes the Times of India by duly paying the subscription charges per month. So the Complainant is a valid Consumer for the purpose of filing up this case. Moreover, failure to furnish information without valid reason amounts to deficiency-in-service, which should be properly compensated.
Prayer for directing the O.Ps for payment of compensation towards financial loss, mental agony and hardship to the Complainant.
O.P No.1 filed his W/V challenging the maintainability, cause of action and denying the entire case of the Complainant. It is submitted that the O.P No.1 is an employees of O.P No.3 and working in the capacity of Editor, who is responsible only for the selection of the news and in no way involved or connected with any administrative function or policy decision of the O.P No.3. It is denied that the print line appearing at the bottom of one of the pages is in such small, miniscule point/font size that no normal person with standard even perfect visibility will be able to read those letters/lines. The same as per the details of Printer, Publisher and Editor arte in accordance with the law as admitted by O.P.No.1.
Before dealing with the allegations contained in the complaint, the O.P No.1 submit and state as follows:-
(i) The disputes as alleged do not relate and/or concern the O.P No.1 and does not ipso facto fasten any responsibility on O.P No.1. As an employee of O.P No.3, he is not liable even if there is any deficiency-in-service as no consideration has passed to him nor Complainant has taken any services from him.
(ii) O.P No.1 is not responsible and liable in any manner what so ever in respect of the allegations of the Complainant. O.P No.1 is responsible for the editorial job, which is the selection of the news item published in the newspaper.
(iii) The O.P.No.1 edits on behalf of the O.P No.3, O.P No.1 is an editor who is responsible only for the selection of the news. The O.P No.1 can’t be held liable for any policy or business decisions of the O.P No.3. It is respectfully submitted that print line is as per law.
(iv) Allegations against the O.P No.1 is not sustainable in law as the O.P No.1 is only an employee of O.P No.3 and is in no way involved or connected with any administrative function or policy decisions of the O.P No.3.
No such e-mail dated 06.01.2013, 16.02.2013 and 26.02.2013 had been received by O.P No.1. It is denied that Complainant is a Consumer and entitled to get any relief against O.P No.1 for any loss/injury suffered by him for any act of O.P No.1, either for any negligence or deficiency-in-service on the part of the O.P No.1. Prayed for to expunge and/or strike out the name of O.P No1, who is in no way connected with the allegations framed by the Complainant.
O.P No.2 filed his W/V challenging the maintainability, cause of action and denying the entire case of the Complainant. It is submitted that the O.P No.2 is an employee of O.P No.3 and working in the capacity of Asst. Vice President and Branch Head, where Bhubaneswar edition is under the control of Kolkata Office. He is also the publisher and printer of the newspaper, The times of India owned by the O.P No.3. The O.P No.2 publishes on behalf of O.P No.3 and can’t be held liable for any policy or business decision of O.P No.3. It is denied before dealing with the allegations contained in the complaint, the O.P No.2 submit and state as follows:-
(i) The disputes as alleged do not relate and/or concern the O.P No.2 and does not ipso facto fasten any responsibility on O.P No.2. As an employee of O.P No.3, he is not liable even if there is any deficiency-in-service as no consideration has passed to him nor Complainant has taken any services from him.
(ii) O.P No.2 is not responsible and liable in any manner what so ever in respect of the allegations of the Complainant.
(iii) As regards the printing and publishing of the paper is concerned, it is the sole affairs of the business of the Principal, which is the O.P No.3. The O.P.No.2 publishes on behalf of the O.P No.3. The O.P No.2 can’t be held liable for any policy or business decisions of the O.P No.3. It is respectfully submitted that print line is as per law.
(iv) Allegations against the O.P No.2 is not sustainable in law as the O.P No.2 is only an employee of O.P No.3 and is in no way involved or connected with any administrative function or policy decisions of the O.P No.3.
The W/V filed by O.P No.3 and submitted that O.P No.3 is M/s. Bennett Coleman & Co. Ltd. is a company under the companies Act,2013 and is the owner of the newspaper named “Times of India” and challenging the maintainability and cause of action of the C.D Case and denying the entire case of the Complainant.
Submission and objections by O.P No.3 as against the complaint filed by the Complainant are as under:-
1. The Complainant has not filed any documents which shows that O.P No.3 has promised or mentioned that newspaper will be of particular size or shapes. It is also important to mention that if a newspaper is published in particular size or it is cut how does it amounts to deficiency-in-service.
2. The claim of the Complainant for compensation of Rs.54,000/-(Rupees Fifty four thousand) only as against the cost of Times of India newspaper is Rs.6/- or Rs.7/- at Balasore is absurd and a hoax claim and is not sustainable under the said act.
3. The petition of Complainant is defective on the ground of mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties.
4. The Complainant is not a Consumer, as he is not the subscriber of the Times of India newspaper nor paid any consideration to O.P No.3.
The O.P No.3 has further stated that the O.P No.3 are into business of Printing and Publishing newspaper and the vendor distributes different news papers published by different companies to readers purchasing from various dealers. Readers pay to vendor directly. The Dealers purchase said news papers from the O.P No.3.
The O.P No.3 has to come out with innovative solutions for their advertisers, which is necessary for survival of the newspaper. The newspapers work on the business model, there by cost of the newspaper is subsidized. All the news papers do these types of innovation to remain in business. Any order passed against this right of O.P No.3 will be in violation of Article-19 and 21 of Constitution of the country. O.P No.3 has to come up with various innovations, one of them is the vertically half cut first page with advertisement of the advertisers to make it more visible to the readers. Any restriction brought in to curb the said innovation for advertisement revenues shall result in reduced revenue of a newspaper and it would either have to run at a loss or raise its price of circulation. Such restriction shall be thus directed against circulation of a newspaper. Prayer for dismissal of this complaint with cost.
On scrutiny of the documents placed on record and written versions filed by the O.Ps, it is noticed that:-
Written version filed by the O.P No.3 as submitted by him is that:-
(a) The dealers purchase the newspaper from O.P No.3 and the vendor buys the newspaper from the dealers and distributes to various readers and entire newspaper industry works in this way. In the instant case, the reader makes payment to the vendor, the vendor pays to the dealers and the dealers pay to O.P No.3. Reader pays to the vendor directly and reads any publication of his choice (Para-6-i). But the vendor neither prints nor publish newspaper. Hence, it is considered that the Complainant is a Consumer to O.P No.3 in this case.
(b) One of such innovation is the vertically half cut first page with advertisements of the advertisers to make it more visible to the readers of the newspaper (Para-6-iii). It is not convinced to the extent that the vertically half cut first page with advertisement will be more visible to the newspaper readers instead of full page advertisement, if advertised accordingly.
(c) The print line appearing at the bottom of one of the pages of the newspaper Times of India, Bhubaneswar Edition and Sunday Times of India, Bhubaneswar Edition with the details of Printer, Publisher and Editor are in accordance with the Law. The details provided by the O.P No.3 are fully visible and legible (Para-6-vi). But the O.P No.3 has not filed any copy of document in support of “the print line appearing at the bottom of one of the pages of the newspaper Times of India, Bhubaneswar Edition is in accordance with the Law.”
(d) The reader finds the Times of India (TOI) and Sunday Times of India (STOI) newspapers “difficult”, “extremely inconvenient, irritating and annoying” to read, but the O.P No.3 has not received any such complaint from any other readers in the country (Para-6-vii). It is also not convinced that O.P No.3 has not received any such complaint from any other readers in the country, which is not proved/ established in the written version already filed.
(e) It is denied that any e-mail complaint was ever made by the Complainant on 06.01.2013 or 16.02.2013 or 26.02.2013. The Complainant has neither disclosed the contents of the complaint alleged to have been sent nor has revealed the address to which it has been sent (Para-6). Copies of e-mail copy addressed to
O R D E R
Having regards to our judgment reflected above, the Complainant is allowed with direction to O.Ps to pay a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One thousand) only being compensation for mental agony to the Petitioner within 30 (thirty) days from the date of communication of this Order.
Pronounced in the Open Forum on this day i.e. the 3rd day of August, 2016 given under my Signature & Seal of the Forum.
