STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,

TRIPURA

APPEAL CASE No.F.A-23/2014

The State of Tripura

Through Sri Partha Pratim Bhattacharjee,

Inspector, Legal Metrology, Sadar,

West Tripura.

                 ….    ….    ….    ….    Appellant.

                   Vs

The Principal Officer,

Oxford University Press,

Plot A 1-5, Block G.P., Sector-V,

Salt lake Electronics Complex,

Kolkata-700091.

             ….    ….    ….    ….    Respondent.

PRESENT :

             HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BAIDYA,

             PRESIDENT,

             STATE COMMISSION

                  MRS. SOBHANA DATTA,

             MEMBER,

               STATE COMMISSION.

For the Appellant : Mr.Partha Pratim Bhattacharjee,Inspector, Legal Metrology

For the respondent   :    Mr.R.Saha,Adv.

Date of Hearing         :   03.02.2015. 

Date of delivery of Judgment  :13.02.2015.

J U D G M E N T

S.Baidya,J,

            This appeal filed under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act., 1986 by the appellant on 04.09.2014 is directed against the judgment and order dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, (in short District Forum), West Tripura, Agartala in case No.C.C-52 of 2013 whereby the Ld. District Forum dismissed the complaint.    

2. The case of the appellant as narrated in the memo of appeal, in brief, is that being authorized under Section 12(1)(d) as representative to protect the interest of the consumers of this State of Tripura in general, the appellant has preferred this appeal alleging inter alia that the O.P. is a publisher of school books and is also required by law not to sell, distribute of books by enhancing the body price once printed by any means and not to indulge in unfair and restrictive trade practices under the C.P.Act, 1986. It is also alleged that on receipt of an information in writing from Sri Arindam Nath,IPS on 17.01.2013 regarding sell of books by St. Paul’s School Authority to the students of the school in which body-price once printed was enhanced, the appellant along with Sri Anidya Chakraborty, Inspector, Legal Metrology, Sadar visited St. Paul’s school, A.D.Nagar, Agartala to enquire into the matter and finding the information prima facie authentic, he served a notice on 02.02.2013 upon the Principal of the said school to explain the reasons as to why complaint should not be filed against her in the District Forum, West Tripura for the aforesaid act and in reply dated 13.02.2013 the said Principal denied the allegation mentioning that they sold the books in the condition as received from the publisher and as per price mentioned in bills raised by the publishers. It has also been alleged that the appellant received some copies of bills issued by the Oxford University Press as well as photo copies of front and back cover pages of a book published by the Oxford University press in support of her statement and during examination he found that the enhancement of price of the cover pages of the books matched with the billed amount which clearly suggested that the price enhancement was, in fact, done by the Oxford University press which is an unfair trade practice.                                                     
3. It has also been alleged that the appellant then sent a notice by registered post to Oxford University press, but no reply was received and thereafter, the appellant being the complainant on behalf of the State of Tripura lodged the complaint before the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala, but the Ld. Forum after hearing the parties dismissed the complaint by the impugned judgment and order and being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment, he has filed the instant appeal on the grounds that the Ld. Forum dismissed the case citing ground that the complainant could not show rule which prohibits the publisher to increase the price of the books where the books are out of print or only few copies are available, but the O.P. did not furnish any evidence to establish that school text books were out of print and only few copies of the books were available, that the Ld. Forum failed to appreciate that the O.P. could not show any rule which permit it to enhance the price of the books solely on the ground of the books being out of print or only few copies being available, that the Ld. Forum did not consider that no law permits to put stickers of the enhanced prices on the original printed price of the exhibited books and, therefore, it is an unethical and unfair trade practice and hence, the instant appeal has been filed praying for setting aside the impugned judgment.              

Points for consideration.

4.       The points for consideration are (1) whether the Ld. District Forum was proper, legal and justified in dismissing the complaint by the impugned judgment and (2) whether the judgment under challenge is liable to be set aside.      

                         Decision with Reasons.

5.  Both the points are taken up together for the sake of convenience and brevity.
6. The Inspector, Legal Metrology appearing for the appellant, State of Tripura submitted that the Ld. District Forum passed the impugned judgment relying on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission in revision petition  No-817/2002 between Pustak Mahal Vs. Rattanlal Premi and others in which the Hon’ble National Commission opined in favour of refixing the price of the books by the publisher at an enhanced rate, in case of rare books which are out of print and is not readily available in the market, by screen printing or putting stickers of the enhanced prices on the original printed prices of the books. He also submitted that admittedly almost all the books as syllabus of ICSE are of the Oxford publication and St. Paul’s School Authority purchased books for its students/guardians of the students from the respondent-O.P., Oxford University Press and as such there is no question of any rare books and out of print books for which the respondent was legally entitled to enhance the price of books by screen printing or by putting stickers of the enhanced rate on the original printed prices of the books. He also submitted that in view of the above position, the decision of the Ld. District Forum relying on the decision of the revision case being revision petition No-817/2002 (Supra) is not sustainable in the eye of law. He also submitted that the protection claimed by the respondent following the principle of law enunciated in the said revision case (Supra) is not available to the respondent and therefore, the action of the respondent to enhance the prices of the books by screen printing or putting stickers of an enhanced prices on the original printed prices of the books was nothing, but an unfair trade practice adopted by the respondent and thereby, the students of the St. Paul’s school have been defrauded by the acts of the respondent by way of unfair trade practice. He then submitted that for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained in the eye of law and as such, it is liable to be set aside and the appeal should be allowed.     
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that throughout India all the book publishers are following this practice which has been practically upheld by the Hon’ble National Commission in the revision case (Supra) and as such, there arises no question of unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent. He also submitted that the reason for enhancing the price of books of previous year’s publication by screen printing or by putting stickers of the enhanced prices on the original printed prices has been necessitated due to the expenses incurred for the inventory cost as appearing from the deposition of the O.P.W.1. He also submitted that all the book-publishers including the respondent have been doing the business of publishing and selling of books of various categories by way of securing loan from the bank and other financial institutions and for that, book-publishers have to pay interest on the loan amount so borrowed. He also submitted that the publishers have to preserve properly the unsold books, if not sold out wholly, for the next year and the amount incurred for unsold books, not only remained in an idle condition, but also carries an interest for that year and the book- publishers have to pay the said interest to the bank or other financial institutions. He also submitted that this payment of interest and the cost of preservation etc are included in the inventory cost which has been come out from the cross-examination of the O.P.W.1. He also submitted that obviously, if unsold books of previous year are sold in the next year, the inventory cost will be added to the printed price of the previous year and the enhanced price including inventory cost is bound to be noted as the prices of the books to be sold in the next year either by screen printing or by putting stickers of enhanced prices on the original printed prices of the said books and in fact, the respondent did so following the usual practice which all the publishers adopt throughout India.      
8. The learned counsel for the respondent admitted that the respondent as O.P. filed the written objection in the District Forum in which the O.P. did not make out any case in support of enhancing the price for the inclusion of the inventory cost with the prices of the books published for the previous year. He also submitted that the examination-in-chief of a witness is the evidence for the party producing that witness and the same is tested through the test of cross-examination and in fact, the deposition of a witness made in cross-examination is used as evidence for and against the party cross-examining that witness. He also submitted that the appellant as complainant cross-examined the O.P.W.1 who appeared and deposed for the O.P.-respondent. He also submitted that the complainant has taken the explanation from the O.P.W.1 during his cross-examination regarding the incurring of expenses by the respondent as inventory cost. He also submitted that although the case of the present respondent as O.P. in the written objection is wanting in respect of this inventory cost, but the appellant through the cross-examination of O.P.W.1 has filled up the said lacuna of the O.P.-respondent. He also submitted that at the same time, a publisher or a book-seller cannot sell a book of the same category at different prices in a particular year and that is why, the respondent-O.P. through the inclusion of inventory cost sold the books at the enhanced price by screen printing or by putting stickers of the enhanced price on the original printed prices of the books with a view to keep conformity with the price of the new books published for the next year. He also submitted that this procedure is adopted by all the book-publishers. He also submitted that students or guardians of the students agreed to purchase the books from the respondent-O.P. through the authority of St. Paul’s school at the enhanced price and that was an open transaction and no question of unfair trade practice arose. He also submitted that the Ld. District Forum rightly relied on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission (Supra) and dismissed the complaint by the impugned judgment which being proper, legal and justified should be upheld and the appeal having no merit should be dismissed.      
9. Going through the pleadings of the parties made in the complaint as well as in the written objection, the evidences both oral and documentary, the impugned judgment and the memo of appeal, we find certain admitted facts. Admittedly, the students/guardians of the students of St. Paul’s school, Agartala did not purchase books directly from the O.P.-respondent-Oxford University Press. It is also admitted fact that the students/guardians of the students purchased books from the said school authority. It is also admitted fact that the school authority as per requirement purchased books from the O.P.-respondent against invoices/bills. It is also admitted fact that the prices mentioned in the invoices are tallied with the prices mentioned in the books purchased by the students/guardians of the students of that school. It is also admitted fact that the books covered under Ext. 1 series and 6 series were not published by the Oxford University Press, the respondent herein. It is also admitted fact that all other books marked exhibited i.e. Ext. 2 series, 3 series, 4 series, 5 series and 7 series are published by Oxford University Press. It is also found admitted position that the prices of the previous year’s published books after screen printing or putting stickers were sold at the price similar to the price mentioned in the next year’s published books. It is also admitted fact that the school authority of the St. Paul’s school did not make any profit by selling the books to the students/guardian’s of its students of that school.    
10. We have gone through the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission (Supra) referred by the learned counsel for the respondent. From the said decision, it is found that the learned counsel for the publisher of that case i.e. Pustak Mahal argued before the Hon’ble National Commission in favour of enhancing the price of the books by screen printing or by putting stickers of the enhanced price on the original printed price of the books referring to the publication of rare books and out of print books, but the case as narrated in that revision case does not disclose that the respondent of that case purchased four books from the Pustak Mahal, revision petitioner if the same were of rare books and/or out of print books. But the fact remains that the Hon’ble National Commission in the said referred revision case has been pleased to accept the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the publisher. It further appears that the Hon’ble National Commission in the said revision case has been pleased to hold that the enhancement of price of the books by screen printing or by putting stickers of the enhanced prices on the original printed prices of the books does not come within the definition of unfair trade practice as provided under Section 2(1)(r) of the C.P.Act, 1986. In fact, the Hon’ble National Commission has been pleased to hold that in doing so, the revision petitioner adopted no unfair trade practice. That being the position, it goes without saying that the putting of stickers or by screen printing of the enhanced price on the original printed price of the books is legally permissible to a publisher of books and that does not tantamount to unfair trade practice. Not only so, the Inspector, Legal Metrology could not show us any provision of law prohibiting the publisher to refix the prices of the books at an enhanced rate. So, considering all and relying on the decision of the Hon’ble National Commission pronounced in the revision case (Supra), we are of the view that the allegation of adopting unfair trade practice by the respondent-O.P., Oxford University Press by way of enhancing the prices of the books has not been proved. So, the argument advanced by the Inspector, Legal Metrology appearing for the appellant-complainant is found not acceptable legally.     
11. We have gone through the impugned judgment and find that the Ld. District Forum elaborately discussed all aspects of the case and relying on the decision of the above mentioned referred case (Supra) ultimately arrived at the conclusion and passed the impugned judgment which being found proper, legal and justified calls for no interference by this Commission. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the appeal having no merit is liable to be dismissed and the impugned judgment should be affirmed.  
12. In the result, the appeal fails. The impugned judgment dated 25.06.2014 passed by the Ld. District Forum, West Tripura, Agartala in case No.C.C.52/13 is hereby affirmed. There is no order as to cost.

                     MEMBER                                             PRESIDENT

                            State Commission                                    State Commission

                                    Tripura                                                      Tripura