Sabyasachi Tripathy filed a consumer case on 17 Sep 2022 against The Owner cum Director,EBC in the Cuttak Consumer Court. The case no is CC/123/2019 and the judgment uploaded on 20 Oct 2022.
IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. COINSUMER DIUSPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.
C.C.No.123/2019
Sabyasachi Tripathy,
S/O:S.B.Padhi,Res. of Plot No.6B-1634,
Sector-10,PO/PS:CDA,Markat Nagar Phase-II,
Cuttack,Dist:Cuttack-753014. ... Complainant.
Vrs.
S/O:Ramesh Sahu,Plot No.S/20,LDA Colony,
PO/PS:Aish Bagh,Lucknow-5,
U.P, Pin-226025. ... Opp. Parties.
Present: Sri Debasish Nayak,President.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.
Date of filing: 01.10.2019
Date of Order: 17.09.2022
For the complainant: Mr. H.K.Dash,Adv. & Associates.
For the O.P.No.1 : Self.
For the O.P No.2: None.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.
Case of the complainant in short is that he is a regular subscriber and consumer of OP No.1, who publishes Supreme Court cases in short “SCC”journal. The complainanat’s subscription number is XS0469. His further case is that the O.P No.1 in the month of October & November,2017 sent message to him to the effect that his representative namely, Mukesh Sahu, the present O.P No.2 would visit Cuttack for collection of advance subscription fees for the journal on behalf of him. Thereafter, the O.P No.2 contacted the complainant on 20.11.17 and collected from him Rs.38,370/- by way of cheque bearing no.091791, dt.5.12.17 towards Bound Volumes of SCC Journal for the year 2018,2019 & 2020 as well as Rs.19,000/- by way of cash from him on 21.11.17 towards delivery of supplementary parts of the journals i.e. SCC for the year from 2015 to 2017. It is further case of the complainant is that although the O.P No.2 received money for delivery of supplementary parts of the journal for the year from 2015 to 2017 but he did not deliver the same inspite of his repeated phone calls by the complainant. Lateron, the complainant came to know that O.P No.2 left the service of the O.P.1 and had cheated many persons like him. Hence, the complainant brought to the notice of the O.P No.1 such facts but the O.P no.1 did not take any effective steps for mitigating his grievance. So the complainant on 28.6.19 sent a demand notice to the O.Ps but the O.Ps did not take any step to that notice also. So the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for a direction to the O.Ps to supply supplementary parts of journals i.e. SCC for the year from 2015 to 2017 or to refund a sum of Rs.19,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from 21.11.17 till realisation of the same.
The complainant in order to prove his case has filed xerox copy of some documents.
2. The O.P No.1 has filed his written version. It is stated by the O.P No.1 that he had discussed the grievance of the complainant with him on 6th &7th of December,2019. The O.P No.1 has disputed about receipt of a sum of Rs.19,000/-, which was paid by the complainant by way of cash through the O.P No.2. It is stated by him that the O.P No.2 left his service on 31.3.18. It is also stated by him that the payment of Rs.19,000/- by way of cash to the O.P No.2 was contrary to his clear instruction. It is further stated by the O.P no.1 that there was clear instruction to the complainant that the payment towards the journal subscription should be made by way of cheque/demand draft. In the instant case payment of Rs.19,000/- has been made by cash. It is also stated by the O.P No.1 that the payment made by the complainant to the O.P No.2 by way of cash has been received by O.P No.2 in his private capacity and for which he is not responsible for the same. However, it is urged by him to adjourn the matter for two months to enable him to sort out the problem. But no information has been received till date regarding the further development of the issue from either of the side by this Commission.
The O.P No.1 has filed the xerox copy of the receipt dt.20.11.17 granted by the O.P No.2 to the complainant in order to prove his case.
3. Keeping in mind the averments as made in the complaint petition with contents of the written version of the contesting O.P, this Commission thinks it proper to settle the following issues in order to arrive at a definite conclusion here in this case.
i. Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?
ii. Whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the O.Ps?
iii. Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed?
Issue no.ii.
Issue no.ii being the pertinent issue is taken up first for consideration here in this case.
Admittedly, the O.P No.1 is a publisher of SCC. The complainant is a subscriber of the said journal and his subscription no. is XSO469. As per the instruction of the O.P No.1, the complainant paid subscription fees to the O.P No.2, who is the agent of O.P No.1. The dispute arose regarding the payment of the complainant to the O.P No.2 by way of cash amounting to Rs.19,000/- towards subscription fees on 21.11.17. The complainant has filed xerox copy of the undertaking given by the O.P No.2 wherein it has been clearly mentioned by the O.P no.2 that he had received Rs.19,000/- by way of cash from the complainant for SCC Journal(supplementary volume) for the year 2015 & 2016. The allegation of the complainant to the effect that he has paid money for the SCC journal for the year 2017 is not supported by any document. Hence, that relief cannot be granted The O.P No.1 also admitted that the O.P No.2 was his agent at the relevant time till 30.3.2018, so also he has not disputed the fact that the O.P No.2 has received the cash of Rs.19,000/-from the complainant towards subscription fees but he has taken plea that the complainant should not have given the subscription fees by way of cash to the O.P no.2 for the Journal which is contrary to his instructions. The O.P No.2 has received the disputed amount before he left the job of O.P No.1. Hence, the O.P No.1 being the principal is bound by the act of the O.P no.2, who was his agent at the relevant period. So both the O.Ps have committed deficiency in service in not providing the journal.
Issue no.i & iii.
When the complainant paid subscription fees for providing supplementary volume of SCC journal for the year 2015 and 2016 amounting to Rs.19,000/- to the O.Ps, whereas the O.Ps had not provided the same, thereby the case is undoubtedly maintainable and thus the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him. Hence it is so ordered;
ORDER
The case is decreed on contest against O.P No.1 and exparte against O.P No.2 who are jointly and severally liable here in this case. The O.Ps are thus directed to supply the supplementary volume of SCC journal for the year 2015 and 2016 or to pay Rs.19,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum with effect from 5.12.17 till the payment is made. The O.Ps are further directed to pay Rs.10,000/- to the complainant towards the litigation expenses within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 17 th day of September,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.
Sri Sibananda Mohanty
Member.
Sri Debasish Nayak
President
Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes
Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.