M/s.K.Mariappan filed a consumer case on 22 Nov 2019 against The Authorized Officer, Time of India in the South Chennai Consumer Court. The case no is CC/72/2016 and the judgment uploaded on 12 Feb 2020.
Date of filing : 07.03.2016
Date of Disposal : 22.11.2019
DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)
@ 2ND Floor, T.N.P.S.C. Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai – 3.
PRESENT: THIRU. M. MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B, M.L. : PRESIDENT
TR. R. BASKARKUMARAVEL, B.Sc., L.L.M., BPT., PGDCLP. : MEMBER
C.C. No.72/2016
DATED THIS FRIDAY THE 22ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019
Mr. K. Mariappan,
S/o. Mr. T. Krishnasamy,
No.1, Kanu Nagar Main Road,
Nesapakkam,
Chennai – 600 078. .. Complainant.
..Versus..
The Authorized Officer,
Times of India,
Chennai Edition,
No.123, Chamier’s Road,
Nandanam,
Chennai – 600 035. .. Opposite party.
Counsel for the complainant : M/s. S. Gopinathan & another
Counsel for the opposite party : M/s. Prashant Rajagopal & others
ORDER
THIRU. M. MONY, PRESIDENT
This complaint has been filed by the complainant against the opposite party under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 prays to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for loss and mental agony and with cost of Rs.20,000/- to the complainant.
1. The averments of the complaint in brief are as follows:-
The complainant submits that on seeing the advertisement given by the opposite party, the complainant subscribed towards annual subscription for Times of India daily news paper and paid a sum of Rs.499/-. The complainant states that immediately, after receipt of payment of Rs.499/- by the opposite party due ID No.33788710 in order form No.NBB 041769 was given confirming annual subscription. The complainant states that from 01.03.2015 to 29.02.2016, the opposite party shall supply the newspaper. The complainant submits that after paying the annual subscription, the complainant anticipated circulation of newspaper by the opposite party as per order form No.NBB 041769. But to the complainant’s great dismay, the opposite party commenced the circulation as promised. Hence, the complainant contacted the opposite party’s representative through phone and requested the due circulation of newspaper. But there is no response. Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated:10.09.2015 for which, the opposite party has not sent any reply. The act of the opposite party amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice which caused great mental agony. Hence, the complaint is filed.
2. The brief averments in the written version filed by opposite party is as follows:
The opposite party specifically denies each and every allegation made in the complaint and put the complainant to strict proof of the same. The opposite party states that the allegation of non-supply of newspaper is absolutely false. The newspaper of the opposite party was circulated through M/s. Amudha Enterprises without any interpretation. From the month of March 2015 to February 2016, M/s. Amudha Enterprises supplied the newspaper without interpretation. Due letter from M/s. Amudha Enterprises also given to the opposite party. It is pertinent to observe that since the legal notice initiate on or before 10.09.2015 raises doubts and clearly proves that the complainant mislead the statements in his complaint and does amount to suppression of facts and on this fact alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed U/s. 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and hence, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
3. To prove the averments in the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A3 are marked. Proof affidavit of the opposite party is filed and no document is marked on the side of the opposite party.
4. The point for consideration is:-
Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and deficiency in service with cost of Rs.20,000/- as prayed for?
5. On point:-
Both parties filed their respective written arguments. Heard their Counsels also. Perused the records namely; the complaint, written version, proof affidavits and documents. The complainant pleaded and contended that on seeing the advertisement given by the opposite party, the complainant subscribed for Times of India daily news paper and paid a sum of Rs.499/- which is seen from Ex.A1, pass book entry. Further the contention of the complainant is that immediately, after receipt of payment of Rs.499/- by the opposite party due ID No.33788710 in order form No.NBB 041769 was given confirming annual subscription. Further the contention of the complainant is that from 01.03.2015 to 29.02.2016, the opposite party shall supply the newspaper. While so, the opposite party commenced the circulation as promised. Hence, the complainant contacted the opposite party’s representative through phone and requested the due circulation of newspaper. But there is no response. Hence the complainant issued legal notice dated:10.09.2015 as per Ex.A2 for which, the opposite party has not sent any reply. Receiving the subscription and not circulating the newspaper amounts to deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, the complainant is constrained to file this case.
6. The contention of the opposite party is that the allegation of non supply of newspaper is absolutely false. The newspaper of the opposite party was circulated through M/s. Amudha Enterprises without any interpretation. From the month of March 2015 to February 2016, M/s. Amudha Enterprises supplied the newspaper without interpretation. Due letter from M/s. Amudha Enterprises also given to the opposite party. But the opposite party has not filed any proof affidavit with relevant documents to prove the contention that the supply of newspaper was prompt. On the other hand, it is very clear from the records that after receiving the subscription, the opposite party has not circulated the newspaper to the complainant is crystal clear in this case. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Forum is of the considered view that the opposite party shall pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and cost of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant.
In the result, this complaint is allowed in part. The opposite party is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) towards compensation for mental agony with cost of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the complainant.
The aboveamounts shall be payablewithin six weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, failing which, the said amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. to till the date of payment.
Dictated by the President to the Steno-typist, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the President and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the 22nd day of November 2019.
MEMBER PRESIDENT
COMPLAINANT SIDE DOCUMENTS:-
Ex.A1 |
| Copy of bank passbook of the complainant |
Ex.A2 | 10.09.2015 | Copy of legal notice sent by the complainant to opposite party |
Ex.A3 |
| Copy of acknowledgement card for the receipt the legal notice |
OPPOSITE PARTY SIDE DOCUMENTS:- NIL
MEMBER PRESIDENT
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.