BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM,ADDITIONAL BENCH, MANGALORE    

Dated this the 2^nd June 2017

PRESENT

SRI. VISHWESHWARA BHAT D         : HON’BLE PRESIDENT

SRI. T.C. RAJASHEKAR                       : HON’BLE MEMBER

ORDER IN

C.C.No.291/2014

(Admitted on 7.8.2014)

Mr. Venkatapathy,

S/O Late. B. Munikrishna,

15^th Avenue, No.2,

NMPT Quarters,

Panambur, Mangalore 575010.

                                                                     ….. COMPLAINANT

(Advocate for the Complainant: Sri MRK)

VERSUS

The Editor,

Competition Success Review,

604, Prabhath Kiran

Rajendra Place,

New Delhi110125.

                                                               ….OPPOSITE PARTY

 (Opposite Party : In person)

ORDER DELIVERED BY HON’BLE MEMBER

T.C. RAJASHEKAR:

I.   1. The above complaint filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act alleging deficiency in service against the Opposite Party claiming, to pay a sum of Rs.50,000/ towards compensation for mental agony, inconvenience and hardship caused to the complainant, pass orders so that publishing houses in future would not even think to commit errors by negligence and oversight in their publications , pay cost of this complaint and other reliefs.

2. In support of the above complaint Mr. Venkatapathy, filed affidavit evidence as CW1 and produced documents C1 to C8 as detailed in the annexure here below. Opposite party filed their version and on behalf of the opposite party no affidavit evidence filed. Documents produced are R1 to R6. as detailed in the annexure here below.  .  

 The brief facts of the case are as under:

          We perused the complaint and the version of the parties. This complaint filed against opposite party for a mistake in the magazine competition success review (hereinafter called the CSR). The complainant alleges that in few issues of the journal there is mistake in answers given to the question published and alleges deficiency in service. The opposite party contended that the answers given in the journal is based on the memory retention test and it is also stated in the journal published that, the publishers are not liable for the mistake in the journal and hence there is no deficiency in service on their part. These are being the facts of dispute we are of the view to decide the following

POINTS FOR ADJUDICATION

On considering the evidence and the documents on records it is revealed that the complainant is the subscriber to the CSR and he alleges few mistakes in the answer given to the questions in the CSR. The opposite party denies their liability even if there is any wrong answers on the ground that there is non- liability clause hence they are not liability. As per these facts we consider the following points for adjudication.

1. Whether the complainant is the consumer under the consumer protection Act 1986?
2. Whether complainant proves there is mistake in the CSR and he has suffered due to the mistaken contained in the CSR?
3. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief prayed for?
4. What order?

On going through the documents and the evidence, and hearing of the parties we answered the points as under:

1. In the affirmative.
2. In the negative.
3. In the negative.
4. As per delivered order.

REASON

POINT NO 1: The complainant produced the postal address subscription wrapper (Sl. No 5 and 6 of the document list of complainant now marked as EX C 5 and EX C 6) as to prove he is the subscriber to the CSR. Even though the opposite party denied the complainant as consumer, but the postal address of the journal posted from, is of the opposite partys address and hence we hold the complainant is the subscriber of the CSR. Hence we answered the point no 1 in the affirmative.

POINT NO 2: The allegation is, there is mistake in answer to the questions published in the CSR. It is complainant burden to prove the mistake and he suffered due to the mistake. The complainants contention with regard to mistake are,

1. In Para 2 of the complaint he alleges in April 2014 special issue page 41 question no 3 the answer given is 4 pi for 360 degree where the answer should be 2 pi. The complainant not produced the page no 41.
2. In Para 3 of the complaint it is alleged that, in June 2014 issue in page No. 64, and answer to question No. 99 it is stated the earth completes the rotation in 23 hours, 56 minutes, and 4.9 seconds which is wrong. But the answer is 23:56:.09053 hours. Page 64 not produced.
3. In July 2014 general knowledge issue page no 166 Question no 31, what drives the nail? The answer ought to be hammer  in option B but incorrectly the answer is given as spanner in option C
4. In July 2014 general knowledge issue page no 34 question 81 for the simple mathematical calculation the answer should be 746.7 but none of such option containing this answer is there.

2.    On going through the record on case file the complainant had produced only page no 166 and 34 (now marked as EX C 7a and C7b)out of four referred above of containing error. On referring to page no 166 and 34 we found there are 5 options for the questions referred. The last one being the None of these in option E. It is crystal clear that if answers are not available among four choices the choice for the contestant would be option E. We do not see any room for confusion. Also the complainant not provided us with the authenticated answer stated by the opposite party. No answered sheet supplied for us to refer the alleged wrong answer stated by the opposite party. 

3.   Apart from this the opposite party filed a copy of the journal of June 2014 page no 174 document indexed as 2 and 2a as per opposite party document list index (now marked as EX R 2 and R 2A). As the opposite party pleaded there is exclusion from liability for the mistake if at all in the CSR journal. It contains a statement despite every effort on the part of the publisher to ascertain the veracity of the information, if some error or omission creeps inadvertently neither the publisher nor any of the employees of the magazine shall be held responsible.

4.   From the above discussion it is clear that there is no any mistake and the complainant not established any wrong information by the opposite party. It is only a misunderstanding of facts by the complainant. Even if there is any mistake or wrong information, the opposite party cannot be made liable as per exclusion clause contain in the page no 174(EX R 2a) as produced by the opposite party. Hence we answered the point No 2 in the negative and in the result the point no 3 also in the negative.

POINT NO 4: In the light of the above discussions and the adjudication of above points we deliver the following                                                                 

                                                                       ORDER

The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.   

     Copy of this order as per statutory requirements, be forward to the parties free of costs and file shall be consigned to record room.

(Page No.1 to 6 directly typed by Member, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 2^nd June 2017)

            MEMBER                                              PRESIDENT

        (T.C. RAJASHEKAR)                        (VISHWESHWARA BHAT D)

  D.K. District Consumer Forum                D.K. District Consumer Forum

Additional Bench, Mangalore                   Additional Bench, Mangalore

ANNEXURE

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:

CW1 Mr. Venkatapathy

Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:

C1 and C2: 30.6.2014: Legal notice  

C3 to C4: 30.6.2014: Postal receipt.

C5: April 2014, Subscription wrapper             Ex.C5

C6: June 2014, Subscription wrapper              Ex.C6

C7: April 2014, competition success issue      Ex.C 7a

C8: June 2014, G.K. issue                                Ex.C 7b

Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:

Nil

Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:

R1: Written statement of complaint on behalf of the Opposite Party along with affidavit in support.

R2: Copies of the pages no.1 and 174 of competition success  review  Ex.R2 and 2A

R3: Copies of the pages no.1 and 182 of competition success review G.K.

R4: Copies of replied of notices dated 8.7.2014.

R5: The authority letter.

R6: Copy of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 17.1.2012 in SLP no.10184 of 2008.

Dated:  02.06.2017                             MEMBER