Orissa

Dhenkanal

CC/52/2017

Diptish Prasad Pattnaik - Complainant(s)

Versus

The Publishers , Legal Associates, And Others - Opp.Party(s)

28 Feb 2018

ORDER

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, DHENKANAL

                                                       C.C.Case No. 52 of 2017

Diptish Prasad Pattnaik, aged about 65 years

S/o late Dibakar Pattnaik,

At: Trutinivas, Mahabir Bazar,

PO/P.S: Dhenkanal Town,

Dist: Dhenkanal                                                             …......Complainant

                                                                Versus

1) The Publisher,

     Legal Associates,

     In front of High Court of Odisha,

     Cuttack

2) Mr. Akshaya Kumar Deo, aged about 63 years

     At: Publisher-cum-Owner of Legal associates,

     In Front of High Court of Odisha, Cuttack

    Dist: Cuttack                                                           …......Opp. Parties

Present: Sri Badal Bihari Pattanaik, President,

                  Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

                 Sri Purna Ch. Mishra, Member

Counsel: For the complainant:  Banabihari Panda & Associates

                 For the Opp. Parties: Puspak Tripathy & Associates

Date of  hearing: 19.2.2018

Date of order: 28.2.2018

                                                                                JUDGMENT

Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy, Member

                In the matter of an application U/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the complainant has come up before this Forum alleging deficiency of service on the part of the Opp. Party.

                1) Very briefly, the case of the complainant is that he is a regular subscriber of Odisha Criminal Reporter which is a monthly criminal law journal and the complainant refers the judgment as citation in different cases.  Therefore, the complainant is a consumer under the O.Ps since he is one annual subscriber of the journal on payment of yearly subscription vide membership No.1146.  It is alleged that while going through the judgment published in 2017, Vol-66 OCR March Part, page-665 on quashing of proceeding   666 and 667 pages are blank and the important portion of the judgment are not printed for which  the complainant is deprived of reading all the contents of the judgment for reference in his client cases.    In page 669 though    a judgment is printed but the same of the parties case No. Placitum etc are not given but the judgment is printed abruptly and page No.658, 659, 662, 663,667 and 671 are also kept blank and the judgment is incomplete which is a deficiency in service.  It is expected that a law publisher should be thorough in printing the judgment without any error because the journal are purchased mostly by the advocates.  Therefore, the complainant has come up before this Forum seeking for a direction to the Opp. Parties to pay a compensation of Rs. 15,000/- along with cost of the litigation of Rs. 5,000/-.  The contents of the petition are supported by affidavit.

                2) The Opp. Parties appeared and filed their written version.  It is in the version of the Opp. Parties that there is no cause of action for filing the present complaint.  The complaint is not maintainable as this Forum lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the present matter.  At the time of subscription of the journal, the petitioner was issued with a receipt, which clearly specified that all disputes would be subject to the jurisdiction of Cuttack town only.  The subscriber of a law report/journal is not a consumer under the provisions of the C.P.Act, 1986.  It is further stated that a consumer aggrieved by the provision of certain goods and services has to first issue a notice to the seller of goods or the service provider specifying his grievance which has not been done in the instant case providing opportunity to remove the anomalies if any.  The complainant has filed the present complaint without issuing a notice to the Opp. Parties.  It is further stated that in order to ensure journalistic excellence, the editorial board of O.C.R has always been comprised of several distinguished judges and advocates of regional and national repute.   The editorial board of O.C.R is headed by Hon’ble Dr. Justice D.P.Mohapatra, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India and Miss. Savitri Ratho, Advocate, Orissa High Court and the aim of the Opp. Parties to ensure the provision of quality legal reporting to the legal fraternity of Odisha at an affordable price.  The annual subscription of O.C.R is around Rs. 4,000 copies.  The copies of O.C.R are printed at Bani Press in Cuttack which is also one of the most prestigious presses in the State.  During printing, utmost care and caution is taken to ensure that no printing or other kinds of error find their way into the copies of the journal.  Despite such care and caution and for no fault of the Opp. Parties, some man-made and mechanical errors are bound to creep in. On receipt of any complaint, the Opp. Parties promptly replace the defective copy and sometimes even provide a fresh copy without demanding the return of the allegedly defective copy.   In the instant case the complainant being an old subscriber of O.C.R is well aware of the system and despite this, he has filed the present complaint without issuing a notice or intimating the Opp. Parties regarding the alleged defect in the copy of the journal supplied to him.  Since the petitioner did not intimate the Opp. Parties regarding the defects in the copy of the journal supplied to him and did not ask for a fresh copy there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties.  Accordingly, it is pleaded that the case is liable to be dismissed since there is no deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Parties.

                3)  Admittedly,   the complainant is a regular subscriber of Odisha Criminal Reporter and the Opp. Parties are the Publisher and supplier of the Journals.  The complainant being a Regular Practitioner of Dhenkanal Bar he has been purchasing the journals on payment of subscription which is beyond any doubt and controversy.  The Opp. Parties   while defending the case  have categorically pleaded that  O.C.R being one of the most reputed journals of the State has a reputation  and Opp. Parties are always ready to provide a fresh copy of the journal to replace any of the defective copy which is inadvertently supplied to some of subscribers.  It is also admitted that the complainant being an old subscriber of O.C.R is well aware of this system.  The complainant has filed the present complaint petition without issuing a notice or intimating the Opp. Parties regarding the alleged defect in the copy of the journal supplied to him. The Opp. Parties have categorically pleaded that utmost care is taken by the Opp. Parties to prevent any such errors from creeping in into the final copies of the journal. Despite all possible precautions to avoid any printing and other forms of error, some mistakes are bound to creep in due to human tendencies and mechanical overload while undertaking the publication and circulation of the journal on such a massive scale.  Such errors are not intentional and can in no way be considered to be a deficiency in service on the part of the Opp. Party.  Besides, it is humbly pleaded that the Opp. Parties have always been prompt and diligent in responding to the complaints of the subscribers.  The complainant before filing of the case has never intimated and has not given any complaint regarding any defect in the journal as has been alleged in his complaint petition leaving no   opportunity to the Opp. Parties to remove or rectify the defects as alleged.  Instead of filing the complaint if the complainant could have intimated this Fact to the Opp. Parties, as per regular practice the Opp. Parties could have supplied another copy of the journal.  When the complainant has not given any opportunity to the Opp. Parties for Redressal of his grievance and even he has not brought the fact of defects in the journal to the knowledge of the O.Ps, they cannot be blamed for any deficiency in service or defective goods.  In the instant case we also found that the complainant soon after noticing the defects in the journal could have lodged complaint before the Opp. Parties and could have asked for replacement of the defective journals, which has not been done so far. Therefore, in our opinion ends of justice would be best safeguarded if a defect free journal is supplied to the complainant free of cost in place of the defective journal.   During the trial of the case the Opp. Parties have deposited a defect free journal which shall be received by the complainant from the Forum with proper acknowledgement and the Opp. Parties are to receive the defective journal from this Forum.   In view of the above observations we do not think it just and proper to go into the merits of the case.  Hence ordered.

                                                                                ORDER

                The complaint is disposed of with the above findings with a direction to the complainant to receive the defect free journal from this Forum which has been deposited by the Opp. Parties with proper acknowledgement.  Besides, the Opp. Parties are directed to receive the defective journal from the Forum with proper acknowledgement.  In the peculiar facts and circumstances no compensation and cost is awarded.

 

(Sri Purna Ch. Mishra)               (Badal Bihari Pattanaik)         ( Miss Bijayalaxmi Satapathy)

                Member                               President                                         Member