DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM Civil Station, Palakkad – 678 001, Kerala Dated this the 30th day of May, 2009
Present: Smt.Seena.H, President Smt.Preetha.G.Nair, Member Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K, Member C.C No.54/2008 P.Balakrishnan, S/o.Late Vijayalakshmi Maruvilamma, Pensioner, 'Shanmugha Priya', Ramanathapuram, Allampallam, Kollengode.P.O, Palakkad. - Complainant (By Adv.E.Sekhar Menon) Vs 1. The Bureau Chief, The Mathrubhumi, No.7, 7th Floor, Parsn Manere, Gemini Compound, Chennai 600 006, Tamil Nadu. (By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran & Manjith.P)
2. The Bureau Chief, The Mathrubhumi, 100 Feet Road, Malampuzha Road, Puthur, Palakkad. (By Adv.Ullas Sudhakaran & Manjith.P)
O R D E R
By Smt.Seena.H, President In short the case of the complainant is as follows:
Complainant is the Decree Holder in EP.86/2006 before Munsiff Court, Chittoor, Judgement Debtor in the said EP was employed at Chennai. So execution court ordered paper publication in Chennai edition of Mathrubhumi daily for effecting publication. On 23/03/2007 complainant paid Rs.468/- to the 2nd opposite party as publication charge and news caption was delivered. Opposite party assured an early despatch of the copy of the newspaper. Inspite of repeated demands the copy of the newspaper wherein the news caption was published was not despatched to the
petitioner. After granting enlargement of time for production of paper publication several times, the Execution Court dismissed the execution petition on 31/10/2007. Complainant has issued a lawyer notice on 1st September, 2007 itself demanding early despatch of the newspaper copy. But the opposite parties neither replied nor despatched the same which resulted in dismissal of EP. Complainant is deprived of filing another Execution Petition since the same is barred by the law of limitation. Complainant has caused a registered lawyer notice to the opposite parties on 14/01/2008 seeking compensation. Opposite parties replied disowning any liability. Hence complaint filed seeking Rs.1 lakh as compensation.
2. Opposite parties filed version contending the following. Opposite parties are respectively the Bureau Chiefs of Mathrubhumi at Chennai and Palakkad. They have no connection with business matter including advertisement and are therefore unconnected parties to the proceedings. Further opposite parties submitted that complainant herein has not booked any advertisement with the Mathrubhumi office. Advocate E.Sekhar Menon has booked an advertisement containing court notice and sought publication of the same in Chennai edition. Matter was published in Chennai edition on 24/03/2007 itself. It is the usual practice of opposite parties in such cases to deliver the newspaper copy free of cost to the advertisee and that has been done in this case also. No amount was collected from the advertisee for delivering the copy.
3. Evidence adduced consists of proof affidavits and documents. Exts.A1 to A4 marked on the side of complainant. Exts.B1 to B5 marked on the side of the opposite parties.
4. In the context of the rival contentions the following issues are framed. Whether the complainant is a consumer? Whether complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of opposite parties? If so, what order?
5. Points 1 and 2: The say of the opposite parties that the complainant herein will not come under the definition of consumer as the advertisement was booked by one Advocate E.Sekhar Menon seems to be unacceptable. Counsel has booked the advertisement for and on behalf of the complainant. Consideration was duly paid and receipt produced. Delivery of the copy of the newspaper is part of the same transaction. Opposite parties also stated that it is their usual practice to deliver the copy in such cases. Opposite parties have raised a contention that they are not connected with the advertising wing. We are of the view that consumer forum being a
benevolent legislation need not look into such trivial technicalities. We answer the points in favour of the complainant.
6. Point No.3: Opposite parties have contented that copy of the newspaper was despatched to the complainant. But opposite parties failed to produce any evidence in this regard. It is seen from Ext.B4 (series) that the execution court has granted enough time for production of the paper publication and the same was dismissed on 31/10/2007 stating paper publication not produced, no representation for Decree Holder. It is evident that EP was not dismissed for the sole reason of non production of paper publication. Further it can be seen that complainant has not taken any steps for early despatch of the copy of newspaper till September 1st, 2007. Only on September 1st, 2007 a notice was issued to the opposite parties. So there is negligence on the part of the complainant also. Further EP was dismissed for non representation which is also a fault on the part of complainant. Since the opposite parties has not produced any evidence regarding the despatch of the copy we are of the view that the act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service. Opposite parties are well aware that as the matter was published in Chennai edition complainant has no chance of getting the same locally. Hence opposite parties ought to have delivered the same in time.
7. In view of the above circumstances, we are of the view that complainant is entitled for compensation for the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. Since there is fault on the part of the complainant also, we award an amount of Rs.4,000/- as compensation.
8. In the result, complaint partly allowed. Opposite parties are directed to pay Rs.4,000/- (Rupees Four thousand only) as compensation for the deficiency in service. Order shall be complied within one month from the date of receipt of the order failing which the whole amount shall carry interest @ 9% p.a from the date of order till realisation.
9. Pronounced in the open court on this the 30th day of May, 2009 Sd/- Seena.H, President Sd/- Preetha.G.Nair, Member Sd/- Bhanumathi.A.K, Member
Appendix
Witness examined on the side of complainant Nil Witness examined on the side of opposite party Nil Exhibits marked on the side of complainant Ext.A1 – Cash receipt No.1927 dt.23/03/2007 for Rs.468/- Ext.A2 (Series) – Copy of letter dt.01/09/2007 sent by counsel of complainant to 2nd opposite party along with postal receipt, acknowledgement card etc. Ext.A3 – Copy of lawyer notice dt.14/01/2008 sent by complainant to opposite parties Ext.A4 – Lawyer notice sent by opposite parties to complainant dt.13/02/2008 Exhibits marked on the side of opposite party Ext.B1 – Copy of lawyer notice dt.14/01/2008 sent by complainant to opposite parties Ext.B2 - Lawyer notice sent by opposite parties to complainant dt.13/02/2008 Ext.B3 – Docket proceeding of the Minsiff Court, Chittur. Ext.B4 (Series) – Affidavit filed by counsel of complainant before the Munsiff Court, Chittur Ext.B5 - Copy of paper publication dt.24/03/2007 published in the Mathrubhumi daily Costs (Not allowed)
......................Smt.Bhanumathi.A.K
......................Smt.Preetha.G.Nair
......................Smt.Seena.H | | 
