BEFORE THE DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, MANGALORE
Dated this the 28th of July 2011
PRESENT
SRI.RAVISHANKAR : PRESIDENT
SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI : MEMBER
SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. : MEMBER
COMPLAINT NO.232/2010
Rohidas Naik,
Aged about 47 years,
So Narayana Naik,
House No.6 108 21,
Evershine Complex,
H.P. Petrol Pump Opposite,
Kavoor, Mangalore 575 015. …….. COMPLAINANT
(Complainant: Appeared in person.)
VERSUS
The Manager,
Vijaya Karnataka Daily Paper,
Kayarmanj Building,
3rd Floor, Ballalbagh,
Mangalore D.K.575 004. ……. OPPOSITE PARTY
(Advocate for the Opposite Party: Sri U.Varadaraj Naik.)
***************
ORDER DELIVERED BY MEMBER SMT.LAVANYA M. RAI:
1. The Complainant filed this complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act against the Opposite Party alleging deficiency in service.
The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The Complainant submits that he is the customer of ‘Vijaya Karnataka’ daily newspaper. Basing on the advertisement dated 09.02.2010 in Vijaya Karnataka Newspaper he ordered for purchase of MP3 player with expandable memory (IPOD) on 20.02.2010 and paid amount of Rs.749/- through his credit card to the purchase of the IPOD. On 28.02.2010 he received a product with one month warranty through courier. But the said product found defective within one month of its purchase. Immediately on 23.03.2010 he telephoned to the number 09900238888 and complained with regard to the defect for which he received answer that one TNT couriers will come and collect the product for repair. But so far any such TNT couriers were not came to collect the product. Again he telephoned to the said number for which they said the Complainant has to send it to Mumbai for replacement. Accordingly he sent the IPOD to the said address but it was returned with an endorsement that addressee not found. Immediately he telephoned to the above said number for enquiry but the said number was not in exist. Thereafter he visited Opposite Party office on 17.05.2010 at Mangalore for asking the postal address of the advertiser. But so far Opposite Party has not furnished address of the said advertiser and consequently on 12.05.2010 he visited Opposite Party office again to discuss the matter and to collect the address of the advertiser but Opposite Party behaved arrogantly and stated that they have no information regarding advertiser. After that Complainant wrote a letter dated 05.08.2010 calling upon the Opposite Party to furnish the address but so far Opposite Party has not furnished the address of the advertiser. Hence Opposite Party is at deficiency of service in not furnishing of the address of the advertiser and Complainant suffered financial loss, hence prays for payment of Rs.5,000/- towards deficiency of service.
2. After service of notice Opposite Party appeared through his counsel and filed version and contended that the Complainant is not a customer of Vijaya Karnataka Daily Newspaper and complaint is not maintainable as there is no relationship of service provider and consumer between Complainant and Opposite Party as defined under the C.P. Act. Opposite Party is not liable or responsible for grievances made in the complaint. The entire transaction had been taken place between Complainant and advertiser and Opposite Party is neither manufacturer nor marketing agent of the product purchased by the Complainant. The Complainant had purchased the product by looking into the advertisement. If at all Complainant alleged deficiency of service or defect in the goods that should be against the manufacturer and not against this Opposite Party. Opposite Party is only a printer and publisher of leading Karnataka newspaper which provides a platform for publication of advertisement of product and services of various manufacturer / trader and he is not legally mandated to check the quality of the product sold by the Opposite Party. As such there is no deficiency of service and prays for dismissal of the complaint.
3. In view of the above said facts, the points now that arise for our consideration in this case are as under:
- Whether the Complainant proves that the Opposite Party has committed deficiency in service?
- If so, whether the Complainant is entitled for the reliefs claimed?
- What order?
4. In support of the complaint, Mr.Rohidas Naik (CW1) filed affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Ex C1 to C9 were marked for the Complainant as listed in the annexure. One Mr.D.Ramakrishna (RW1), Opposite Party filed counter affidavit and answered the interrogatories served on him. Opposite Party produced notes of arguments.
We have considered the evidence and arguments submitted by the parties and also considered the materials that was placed before this Forum and answer the points are as follows:
Points No.(i) & (ii) : Negative.
Point No.(iii): As per the order.
REASONS
5. Points No. (i) to (iv):
The Complainant produced Ex C1 to C9 in order to substantiate his case. The Ex C1 is the product order receipt which shows that the Complainant ordered for said product. Ex C2 is the advertisement dated 09.02.2010 published in Opposite Party Newspaper, Ex C3 is the letter issued by the Complainant to the Editor of the Vijaya Karnataka, Ex C4 is the postal acknowledgement, Ex C5 paper bills, Ex C6 is the Vijaya Karnataka newspaper dated 09.02.2010, Ex C7 is the postal receipts, Ex C8 is the letter issued by the Complainant to the post master dated 17.02.2011 and Ex C9 is the postal acknowledgement. We found that the Complainant is the customer of the Vijaya Karnataka which is not at all disputed the above documents which clearly reveal that the Complainant is the subscriber. The Complainant sworn affidavit stating that he requested the Opposite Party to furnish the address of the seller and alleges deficiency of service in not providing the address against Opposite Party. But we are of the opinion that when the Complainant had purchased IPOD by looking an advertisement published in Opposite Party newspaper, Opposite Party cannot be held liable for transaction took place between Complainant and seller of the product. The learned advocate for the Opposite Party vehemently argued that Opposite Party is only a platform to give an advertisement and their duty is restricted to that advertisement only hence submits no relationship of consumer and service provider. Of course, it is true that the Complainant cannot blame the newspaper if the product found defective which was purchased by looking at advertisement. The Complainant instead of filing complaint against manufacturer or seller has choosen to file this complaint alleging deficiency in service against Opposite Party which is not correct and we are of the opinion that it is the duty of the Complainant to obtain the address of the manufacturer and seller of the IPOD at the time of placing order for purchase itself. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable against Opposite Party under C.P. Act and Complainant failed to establish the deficiency of service against Opposite Party. As such, for the above said reasons we answer point No.(i) and (ii) in the negative.
6. In the result, we pass the following:
ORDER
The complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
The copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge or sent to the parties under postal certificate and thereafter the file shall be consigned to the record room.
(Page No.1 to 6 dictated to the Stenographer typed by her, revised and pronounced in the open court on this the 28th day of July 2011.)
PRESIDENT MEMBER MEMBER
ANNEXURE
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Complainant:
CW1 – Sri Rohidas Naik - Complainant.
Documents produced on behalf of the Complainant:
Ex C1: Receipt of the material.
Ex C2: Paper cutting.
Ex C3: Letter written by the Complainant to the Opposite Party.
Ex C4: Postal Acknowledgement Card.
Ex C5: Receipts of Vijaya Karnataka Paper Bills (13 in Nos).
Ex C6: Vijaya Karnataka Daily News Paper dated 9.7.2010.
Ex C7: Postal Receipt.
Ex C8: 17.2.2011: Letter to the Post Master by Complainant.
Ex C9: Copy of the Cover addressed by the Complainant.
Witnesses examined on behalf of the Opposite Party:
RW1 – Mr D.Ramakrishna, Advertisement Manager of Opposite Party.
Documents produced on behalf of the Opposite Party:
-Nil-
Dated:28.07.2011 MEMBER
