Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/43/2014

K.V. Rao, S/o. Late Sri K.V. Ramana Rao - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Editor in Chief - Opp.Party(s)

In person

11 Feb 2015

ORDER

Filing Date:25.08.2014

Order Date: 11.02.2015

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,

TIRUPATI

 

      PRESENT: Sri.M.Ramakrishnaiah, President ,

        Smt. T.Anitha, Member

 

WEDNESDAY THE ELEVENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND AND FIFTEEN

 

C.C.No.43/2014

 

Between

 

K.V.Rao,

S/o. late. Sri.KV.Ramana Rao,

Aged about 62 years,

Flat No.502, Gananadha Residency,

Sundar Nagar,

Erragadda,

Hyderabad – 500 038.                                                                     … Complainant

 

 

And

 

1.         The Editor-in-Chief,

            TTD Publications,

            TTD Press Compound,

            Tirupati.

 

2.         The Assistant Executive Officer,

            (Sales Division),

            Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams,

            Tirupati.                                                                                 …  Opposite parties.

 

 

            This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 04.02.15 and upon perusing the complaint, written version and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing Sri.K.V.Rao, party-in-person for the complainant, and Sri.P.Balaram, counsel for the opposite parties, and  having stood over till this day for consideration, this Forum makes the following:-

 

ORDER

DELIVERYED BY SRI. M.RAMAKRISHNAIAH, PRESIDENT

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

 

            This complaint is filed under Section-12 of C.P.Act 1986, by the complainant against the opposite parties for the following reliefs 1) to direct the opposite parties to release all the missing parts of Kavithraya Maha Bharatham viz., Sabhaparvam, Aaranyaparvam part-1, Bishmaparvam and handover one copy of the same to the complainant on payment at the right price 2) to direct the opposite parties to pay compensation of Rs.85,000/- towards mental agony and hardship caused to the complainant and 3) to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.10,000/- towards costs of the complaint.  

2.  The brief averments in the complaint are:- That on 05.08.2013, the complainant purchased the volumes of Kavithraya Maha Bharatam, that are available by paying Rs.955/- under the bill No.1151314001980 dt:05.08.2013, on the assurance given by the sales personal of TTD publication stall at Tirumala, that the remaining parts will be released shortly and the complainant can purchase them on his next visit. That on 12.06.2014, the complainant again went to the said book stall and on enquiry, he was informed that all the volumes of Kavithraya Maha Bharatam were available. When the complainant asked them to sell the remaining parts to him, they refused to sell them on the pretext that all the volumes should be purchased and selected volumes will not be sold. Had TTD publications published all the volumes, the complainant would have purchased all the volumes at once. Instead of doing so, the opposite parties have sold some of the volumes only. Thus TTD publications have committed unfair trade practice. Hence the complaint.

3.  The opposite party No.2 filed written version and opposite party No.1 adopted the same contending that the complainant purchased 13 volumes of  Maha Bharatam books on 05.08.2013 as stated by the complainant. That TTD management has decided to bring revised edition of Maha Bharatham books duly carrying out certain corrections in those books. The parts available were ordered to be sold at Rs.75/- per volume, so as to clear-off the stock before revised edition was released for sale. The complainant accordingly purchased 13 volumes by paying Rs.75/- per volume. No staff member assured him that remaining parts will be sold to him in separate volumes and that he can purchase the remaining volumes independently. The opposite parties further contended that initially Maha Bharatam books were released in the year 2012 with 2000 copies and kept for sale, costing a set of books at Rs.1,000/-. The management decided to print revised edition by carrying out certain corrections and to sell the present available volumes at Rs.75/- per volume independently as per the requirement of the pilgrims to the extent of the stock available. The staff is directed to clear-off the stock by December 2012, while so, the complainant purchased 13 volumes at Rs.75/- per each volume. As per the orders of the Executive Officer (E.O), TTD in Roc.No.SWP/9/SWP/TTD/2011 Dt:28.12.2012, granted permission to sell uneven volumes of Maha Bharatam at Rs.75/- per volume.

4.  The Assistant Executive Officer of TTD is in no way concerned. The Executive Officer is competent to pursue the proceedings as per Section-129 of A.P.Charitable and Endowment Act. The Executive Officer is not made as party to this case. On this ground, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The other allegations made in the complaint were denied by the opposite parties. There is no cause of action for filing of the complaint, there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant, the complainant is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and prays the Forum to dismiss the complaint with costs.

5.  The complainant filed his complaint. Later he did not appear before the Forum. He did not choose to file his evidence affidavit or written arguments in support of his case. Where as the opposite parties have filed their chief affidavit reiterating the averments in the written version and also filed Ex.B1 apart from their written arguments.  

6.  Now the points for consideration are:-

(i).  Whether there is unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties?

(ii).  Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs sought for?

(iii).  To what relief?

7.  Point No.(i):- To answer this point, except the complaint allegations, no other material is found on record. The complainant also did not turn-up, failed to file evidence by way of affidavit and documentary in support of his case. The complainant sent a letter through airmail dt:12.12.2014, which was received in this Forum on 30.12.2014, in which he stated that he is at London and he will be at London till 20^th March 2015 and requested to adjourn the case till he comes back. This type of letters cannot be acted upon. If this letter is accepted, the very objective of institution of this Forum will be defeated. Therefore, the said letter was not accepted. The word unfair trade practice as contemplated under Section-2(i)(r) defines as:

“unfair trade practice” means a trade practice which, for the purpose of promoting the sale, use or supply of any goods or for the provision of any service, adopts any unfair method or unfair or deceptive practice including any of the following practices, namely:- (i)  falsely represents that the goods are of a particular standard, quality, quantity, grade, compensation, style or model; (ii)  falsely represents that the services are of a particular standard, quality or grade; (iii)  falsely represents any re-built, second-hand, renovated, re-conditioned or old goods as new goods; (iv)  represents that the goods or services have sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics, accessories, uses or benefits which such goods or services do not have; (v)  represents that the seller or the supplier has a sponsorship or approval or affiliation which such seller or supplier does not have; (vi)  makes a false or misleading representation concerning the need for, or the usefulness of, any goods or services; (vii)  gives to the public any warranty or guarantee of the performance, efficacy or length of life of a product or of any goods that is not based on an adequate or proper test thereof:

 

            None of these ingredients were found in the allegations made by the complainant. The allegations made by the complainant against the opposite parties were not established. As such, it can be fairly said that there is no unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite parties. Accordingly this point is answered.

            8.  Point No.(ii):-  To answer this point it is pertinent to state that the complainant failed to place any evidence before this Forum to show that any of the sellers from the book stall assured him that they can supply the remaining three parts of Maha Bharatam to the complainant, that there is no even allegation that opposite parties or their agents in the book stall, have collected the cost of the remaining volumes. That the complainant himself purchased the available volumes of Kavithraya Maha Bharatam at his own accord. If the remaining parts sold independently, he can purchase, else, he has to purchase all the volumes as one set but he cannot insist for sale of each volume separately, that there is no such practice or promise from the opposite parties to sell the alleged three volumes independently / separately. No loss is caused to the complainant or no deficiency in service is found on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, the opposite parties need not pay any compensation and the complainant also not entitled to the compensation as claimed. That apart his case is without any evidence. Basing on the complaint alone, it cannot be said that the complainant has made out a case. Accordingly this point is answered.

            9.  Point No.(iii):-  In view of our holding on points 1 and 2, we are of the opinion that the complainant failed to establish his case, as such he is not entitled to any relief sought for and the complaint therefore is liable to be dismissed.

            In the result, the complaint is dismissed. No costs.

Typed to dictation by the stenographer, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum this the 11^th day of February, 2015.   

 

       Sd/-                                                                                                                      Sd/-                                                     

Lady Member                                                                                                      President

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESS EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES

 

 

 

 RW-1:  S.Krishnaiah, S/o. Venkataiah (Chief Affidavit filed).

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits	Description of Documents
Ex.B1.	Photocopy of proceedings dt:28.12.2012.

 

 

                                                                                                                                                                   Sd/-         

                                                                                                                President

// TRUE COPY //

// BY ORDER //

 

 

Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati.

 

 

Copies to:-     1. The Complainant.

                        2. The opposite parties.