IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ALAPPUZHA
Friday the 29th day of July, 2011
Filed on 01.11.10
Present
- Sri. Jimmy Korah (President)
- Sri. K. Anirudhan (Member)
- Smt. Shajitha Beevi (Member)
in
C.C.No.283/10
between
Complainant:- Opposite Parties:-
Sri.K.U.Thomas, 1. The Manager,
Kuracheril House, Malayala Manorama Alappuzha Bureau,
Thathampally.P.O. J.P.Tower, V C S B Road,
Alappuzha – 688 013. Alappuzha – 688 011.
(By Adv.P.J.Joseph)
2. The Chief Editor,
The Malayala Manorama Co Ltd.,
P.B.No.300, K.K.Road, Kottayam – 686 001.
(By Adv.Millu Dandapani)
O R D E R
SRI.JIMMY KORAH (PRESIDENT)
The case of the complainant in a nutshell is as follows: - The complainant on 8th September 2010 approached the 1st opposite party to disseminate the photo graph of his beloved son in the 'Malayala Manorama Daily' to commemorate his son on his first death anniversary which falls on 20th September 2010. For the said purpose, the complainant with specific instructions handed over to the 1st opposite party a CD specifically composed by a computer graphic designer. In the said Compact Disk, the fonts, fonts' size and the back ground color, size of the photograph etc were explicitly depicted, and the opposite party was particularly instructed to publish the same similarly in the manner they appear in the CD. According to the complainant, the CD virtually reflected the complainant's indescribable affection towards his prematurely departed son. To the complainant's surprise and sorrow, the opposite parties adjusted the font, plan, design and the entire layout according to their whims and convenience to publish the same in the News Paper. The opposite parties inflicted inexplicable agony to the complainant and his family. Got aggrieved on this alleged deficiency of service, the complainant approached this Forum for compensation and other relief.
1. On notice being served, the opposite parties turned up and filed version. The contention of the opposite party is that the opposite parties never changed the content or layout of the matter entrusted to them for publishing in the daily. According to the opposite parties the matter was duly published in the mode and manner the complainant specifically instructed. The opposite parties only changed the font size to a big size only because if the font size suggested in the compact disc was too small to read. The opposite party did so even without disturbing the layout. The change of font size was absolutely for the benefit of the complainant, the opposite party asserts. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties. The complainant is not entitled to any relief. The complaint is only to be dismissed with cost to the opposite parties, the opposite parties forcefully contend.
2. The evidence of the complainant consists of the testimony of the complainant himself as PW1 and the documents Exbts. Al to A9 were marked.
3. Bearing in mind the contentions of the parties, the issues that come up before us for consideration are:-
(1) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties?
(2) Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief'?
4. Keeping in mind the contentions in issue, we anxiously perused the pleadings, submissions and other materials placed on record by the parties. It appears that the crux of the dispute is confined to the mode and manner by which the matter the complainant furnished to the opposite parties was published in the news paper. To put it in other words, there is no dispute with regard to the contents or so on as to the subject matter. The opposite party contends that the font size was enlarged a bit so as to appear the matter more legible and attractive. The opposite parties assert that save the said change, special care was taken not to upset the layout or content. We meticulously perused the documents, particularly Exbt. A8 and A3 documents. It is worthwhile to notice that had the matter published in the font size as suggested by A1, though decipherable, the same would not have been clear or impressive. Further, a plain perusal of Exbt. A3 evidently suggests that the font size was made a bit bigger which caused the same more intelligible and understandable. We are of the view that the intention of the opposite parties was gracious and what was done is for the benefit of the complainant. Needless to say, the case of the complainant does no merit acceptance. We have no other course open, but to dismiss the complaint.
For the forgoing reasons, the complaint stands dismissed. The parties are left to bear with their own costs.
Pronounced in open Forum on this the 29th day of July, 2011.
Sd/-Sri. Jimmy Korah
Sd/-Sri. K. Anirudhan
Sd/-Smt. N. Shajitha Beevi
Appendix:-
Evidence of the complainant:-
PW1 - K.U.Thomas (Witness)
Ext. A1 - The CD containing the matter given for publishing
Ext. A2 - Original Receipt No.DA/1971 issued by the 1st opposite party dated, 08.09.10
Ext. A3 - Page No.16 of Malayala Manorama daily containing the published matter
Ext. A4 - e-mail sent by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party dated, 21.09.10
Ext. A5 - e-mail reply sent by the 2nd opposite party dated, 23.09.10
Ext. A6 - The written complaint filed by the complainant dated, 21.09.10
Ext. A7 - The Letter issued to the complainant dated, 06.10.10 (2 sheets)
Ext. A8 - Print out in original size of the matter given in CD for publishing
Ext. A9 - Photo of the Office Board – News Bureau, Alappuzha
Evidence of the opposite parties:- Nil
// True Copy //
By Order
Senior Superintendent
To
Complainant/Opposite Parties/S.F.
Typed by:- P.R/-
Compared by:-
