KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSALCOMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
APPEAL 349/2006
JUDGMENT DATED 31.12.2010
PRESENT:-
SHRI. M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
APPELLANT
P. Vijayan Pillai,
Palapparambil,
Nandikulangara,
Mannam 683 520,
N. Paravoor, Eranakulam.
Vs
RESPONDENT
1. Managing Director,
Mathrubhumi daily,
Kaloor, Cochi 682 017
(Rep. by Adv. V. Krishna Menon & Others)
2. Sonny Jacob,
Owner, Sunny Jacob Jewelers,
Kotta’yam 686 001
JUDGMENT
SHRI. M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
This appeal prefers from the order passed by the CDRF, Ernakulam dated 19.4.2006. The appellant is the complainant and the respondents in the above O.P. are the opposite parties. The appellant/complainant prefers this appeal under the order of dismissal of his complaint by the Forum below.
In short the complainant alleged that the first opposite party who is the Mathrubhumi daily evolved a price scheme called “ Akshara Laksham” in their scheme. The second opposite party is the sponsor of the scheme. The scheme was launched as per the terms and conditions published in the Mathrubhumi daily newspaper and it was produced by the complainant and marked as Ext. B1. As per the scheme, on the first day 4 word titles of jumbled and letter along with 16 squares of 4 each in a row would be published in the newspaper. In the 16 squares, some square would have printed itself. The readers had to unscramble the letters in each row to form a meaningful word in each of the 4 rows. As part of the context, Idea if a few lucky winners, the position of the circles printed inside the squares would be arranged in the form of predetermined word and the same would be published in the specified principles of copies of the Mathrubhumi daily. The next day, a question would be published in the newspaper whose answer would be the word obtained by joining letters in the circles. Only a specified number of copies of the daily newspaper could have the circles in the correct position and the remaining copies also there would be the circles. But the word formed would be totally different from the correct answers. The letters obtained from the printed circulars while forming meaningful words in the 4 rows should be the answer to the question that would be published in the next day and the 16 squares and letters written should exactly matched the printed answers published in the following days. Disputes relating to the jumble numbers 3 and 4. The case of the complainant is that he had given correct answers to these jumbles but he was not given the price offered by the opposite party. His prayer is to direct the opposite parties to pay him two gold coins of one sovereign each or its value with 12 % interest and cost of the proceedings.
The first opposite party contented in their written version that the complaint the complainant is not maintainable and it is based on promised that complainant would have been lucky winner of the scheme. Another condition was that he is not a consumer. In the absence of any consideration was paid by him. The complainant has no case that there has been any deficiency in services on the part of the opposite parties before starting the scheme its mode of operation has been published in the Mathrubhumi daily dated 14.4.2005. The jumble which been unscrambled would form the correct word and which was published on 17.4.2005 was not one as mentioned by the complainant. In a few newspapers alone the jumble which had been unscrambled would form the correct word, had been published in their dailies. The jumble has referred by the complainant had been published. The unscramble word would be the answer to the question that would be published in the next days daily. There is no merit in the allocation raised by the complainant in his complaint and he has not entitled for any relief. The second opposite party has no role in determining the prize winners. The complainant is not entitled to for any relief.
The evidence consist of Ext. A1 to Ext. A15 the document filed by the complainant and Exts. B1 to B5 documents marked by the opposite parties. No oral evidence was adduced by both parties. The General Manager, Circulation of the first opposite party filed a brief affidavit but the complainant did not cross examine him.
The Forum below heard in details both parties and discussed entire case came before the Forum below. The Forum below taken a view that the rules and conditions of the scheme contained in the Ext. B1 are stated in paragraph 1st of their order. It shows that in few papers alone having jumbles which being unscramble would form the correct word had been published the newspaper dated 17.4.2005. The word owing to jumble No. 3 had been published is as shown Ext. B2 in other dailies of 17.4.2005, is as shown in Ext. B2 in the jumbles published was as referred to by the complainant. The unscramble word would be the answer to the question what would be published in the next day’s daily. The question in respect of jumble No. 3 “ as to what was the name of the new movie of superstar Rajanikanth in which he was the hero.” The correct answer to this was” Chandramughi” But the answer given by the complainant was ‘Chandrabimban’ the question that was asked in respect of jumble No. 4 was as to where was Mahatma Gandhi laid to raised the complainant gave the answer ‘Rajnottam’ in respect of the correct answer’ Rajghat’. It is seeing that the first opposite party had published the name of winners. The Forum below also found that the complainant have no case that the price were not given to the winners. Further there is no case for him that in person who had furnished answers given by him was given the prize. The Forum below also did not find any unfair trade practice was committed by the opposite party. The Forum below found that answer to the jumble is in correct though, it was deciding by the sponsors. Further the answers should be accordance with the clew given to the readers of the news paper itself. The complainant can claim the prize only if he is a lucky winner. In the circumstances the complainant is not entitled for any relief from the opposite parties. In the result, the Forum below dismissed the complaint.
This appellant prefers this appeal from the above impugned findings of the Forum below.
On this day this appeal came before this Commission for final hearing both the appellant and respondents are present. We heard both in detail. The appellant appeared in person and he filed his written arguments in Malayalam language. The appellant argued that his appeal in details on the grounds of the appeal memorandum and he submitted that the order passed by the Forum below is illegal and not accordance with the spirit of the Consumer Protection Act,. He prays to allow this appeal and also to allow the complaint. The Counsel for the respondent/ opposite parties also filed their very detailed arguments note along with bundle of decisions of the apex courts. We the Commission heard in details and perused the entire evidence from the case bundle. It is seeing that the appellant is a consumer. He subscribed either through the agent or through some other parts of the newspaper of the respondents. He is a deemed subscriber. The respondents have no case that they circulate this news paper on free of cost. The opposite parties submitted that the complainant is not a consumer. There is consideration paid by the complainant. The appellant/complainant is a person carefully scrutinizing this column published by the opposite parties each and every day. He filled all the columns and verify along with the published results carefully and seriously. The reason stated in the order of the Forum below is that the complainant have no case that he was not in the lists of the prize winners is not legally sustainable. We are taking a view that the appellant/complainant is a right person to approach the Forum below for his remedy, as per the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act. The Forum below also found that the complainant have no case that the offered prize was given to any of the winners is incorrect. It is nothing but a hyper technicality. But in this case the complainant did not take any steps to prove that his answers were only correct answers. He had no authority to say that the answers published by the opposite parties is incorrect answers and his answers are the only correct answers. The opposite parties given proper answers in the objective type. The complainant did not taken any attempt to prove his answers are most correct answers and published answers are incorrect. Here authority produced by the complainant to say which is most appropriate or correct answer. The appellant/complainant did not cited any knowledge expert to say it is the most correct or appropriate answer of the questions published by the opposite party newspaper.
We think this is nothing but an attempt taken by the opposite parties to increase their circulation. But no one is seeing in the terms and conditions that this scheme is launched subject to the conditions. But the very same time the opposite parties must keep in their mind that the certain class of readers of the news papers is very seriously analyzing news and advertisements. This complainant is nothing but of result of such grievances of readers or subscribers. But in the absence of the evidence adduced by the appellant/complainant compare the accuracy of the answer filled by him and published by the first opposite party newspaper. It is not possible to decide this dispute as per the shadow of the evidence. In the circumstances, we are not seeing any reason to interfere in the impugned order passed by the Forum below. We are not in a position to allow the appeal in the absence of the positive evidence adduced by the appellant/complainant in this dispute.
In the result this appeal is dismissed and confirmed the order passed by the Forum below. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs. Points of the appeal answered accordingly..
M.K. ABDULLA SONA : MEMBER
M.V. VISWANATHAN : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ST
