IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, PATHANAMTHITTA,
Dated this the 29th day of September, 2012.
Present : Sri. Jacob Stephen (President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member)
C.C. No. 116/2012 (Filed on 29.06.2012)
Between:
Xavier Thomas @ Baby
Mavelil, Mavelil House,
Punnaveli P.O.,
Mallappally – 689 589. … Complainant.
And:
1.Thomas. P.D.,
News agent,
Padinjathu Veedu,
Punnaveli P.O.,
Mallappally – 689 589.
2. Circulation Manager,
Malayala Manorama Unit,
Pathanamthitta. … Opposite parties.
(By Adv. G.M. Idiculla)
ORDER
Sri. Jacob Stephen (President):
The complainant has filed this complaint against the opposite parties for getting a relief from the Forum.
2. The brief facts of this complaint is as follows: The complainant is a subscriber of Malayala Manorama daily for the last so many years. The first opposite party is the local agent of the Malayala Manorama daily and the second opposite party is the Circulation Manager of Malayala Manorama daily, Pathanamthitta Unit. From January 2012 onwards, the first opposite party is not giving the daily in the complainant’s residence and he is giving the complainant’s news paper in a nearby house. Then the complainant asked the first opposite party to supply the paper at his residence. But the first opposite party told the complainant that either the complainant has to take the paper from the nearby house or to stop the daily. Moreover, the first opposite party is also collecting an additional amount of ` 15 in the name of service charge over and above the actual price of ` 122. The first opposite party is not entitled to collect any amount than the actual price fixed by the company. Even then, the complainant is paying the amount demanded by the first opposite party for getting the news paper.
3. As per the norms of the company, nobody other than the local agent can supply news paper in an area where a particular agent was appointed by the company. So the complainant is compelled to buy the news paper from the first opposite party. But the first opposite party is not providing the daily to the complainant’s residence to the reasons best known to the first opposite party. Therefore, the complainant made complaints to the second opposite party. But there was no response from the second opposite party and now also the complainant is not getting the news paper at his residence. Because of this, the complainant is put to much hardships and other sufferings. The above said acts of the opposite parties are a clear deficiency in service and they are liable to the complainant for the same. Hence this complaint for an order directing the opposite parties to provide the daily regularly at his residence and at the company rate and for the realization of the excess amount collected by the first opposite party along with compensation of ` 50,000 and cost of ` 25,000 from the opposite parties.
4. In this case, the first opposite party is exparte.
5. The second opposite party entered appearance and filed their version in the following contentions: According to the second opposite party, there is a written contract between the first and second opposite party regarding the news paper agency and the first opposite party is allowed to sell the news paper at ` 122 per month and the agent’s commission is given from the selling price. Agents are not allowed to sell at a price other than that is fixed by second opposite party. Second opposite party is not responsible for the excess price collected by the agent. Second opposite party has not caused any damages to the complainant. Second opposite party is giving adequate commission to the agents. In the nature of the complainant’s allegations, second opposite party is not a necessary party to this proceedings. With the above contentions, second opposite party prays for the dismissal of the complaint against the second opposite party.
6. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the only point to be considered is whether this complaint can be allowed or not?
7. The evidence of this complaint consists of the oral deposition of PW1 and Exts. A1 to A4. Second opposite party has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence in their favour. But they have cross examined PW1. After closure of evidence, both sides were heard.
8. The Point: The complainant’s allegation is that he is a subscriber of Malayala Manorama daily for the last so many years and the first opposite party is the present agent of the daily. Recently, the first opposite party collected an amount of ` 15 as his service charge over and above the company price of the daily. Moreover, the first opposite party is not providing the news paper at the residence of the complainant. His complaint to the second opposite party in this matter against the first opposite party is also not redressed by the second opposite party. The above said acts of the opposite parties are clear deficiency in service and illegal and the opposite parties are liable to the complainant for the same.
9. In order to prove the complainant’s case, the complainant had filed a proof affidavit in lieu of his chief examination along with 4 documents. On the basis of the proof affidavit, the complainant was examined as PW1 and the documents produced were marked as Exts. A1 to A4. Ext. A1 is the public notice dated 02.08.2011 issued by the News Paper Agency Association, Nedumkunnam Unit. Exts. A2, A2(a) and A2(b) are the agency receipts dated 09.02.2012, 17.04.2012 and 21.06.2012 respectively issued by the first opposite party in the name of the complainant. Ext. A3 is the copy of the letter dated 27.03.2012 sent by the complainant to the second opposite party. Ext. A4 is the specimen copy of the Agency Application Form with the terms and conditions of the agency of Malayala Manorama daily.
10. On the basis of the contentions and arguments of the parties, we have perused the available materials on record and found that the complainant is a subscriber of Malayala Manorama daily through the first opposite party, the local agent of Malayala Manorama Company. As per Exts. A2 series receipts, it is found that the first opposite party had collected excess amount of ` 15 per month from the complainant over and above the fixed price of the news paper on the basis of Ext. A1 notice published by the News Paper Agency Association, Nedumkunnam Unit. Since the first opposite party is exparte, the allegations of the complainant that the first opposite party is not providing the news paper at the residence of the complainant and the first opposite party is collecting excess amount from the complainant are proved as unchallenged. On a perusal of the terms and conditions of Ext. A4 and on the basis of the deposition of PW1, the complainant, we cannot find any fault against the second opposite party in this matter. Therefore, this complaint can be allowed against the first opposite party.
11. In the result, this complaint is allowed; thereby the first opposite party is directed to provide Malayala Manorama daily regularly at the complainant’s residence at the price fixed by the company within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. The first opposite party is also directed to return an amount of ` 120 (Rupees One hundred and twenty only) collected from the complainant in addition to the actual price of the news paper along with a compensation of ` 2,500 (Rupees Two thousand five hundred only) and cost of ` 500 (Rupees Five hundred only) to the complainant within 10 days from the date of receipt of this order. In the event of non-compliance of this order by the 1st opposite party, the complainant is allowed to realize a total amount of ` 10,000 (Rupees Ten thousand only) from the first opposite party with 10% interest per annum from this date till the realization of the whole amount.
Dictated to the Confidential Assistant transcribed and typed by him, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 29th day of September, 2012.
(Sd/-)
Jacob Stephen,
(President)
Sri. N. Premkumar (Member) : (Sd/-)
Smt. K.P. Padmasree (Member) : (Sd/-)
Appendix:
Witness examined on the side of the complainant:
PW1 : Xavier Thomas.
Exhibits marked on the side of the complainant:
A1 : Public notice dated 02.08.2011 issued by the News Paper
Agency Association, Nedumkunnam Unit.
A2, A2(a) and A2(b) : Agency receipts dated 09.02.2012,
17.04.2012 and 21.06.2012 respectively issued by the
first opposite party in the name of the complainant.
A3 : Copy of the letter dated 27.03.2012 sent by the
complainant to the second opposite party.
A4 : Specimen copy of the Agency Application Form with the
terms and conditions of the agency of Malayala
Manorama daily.
Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
Exhibits marked on the side of the opposite parties: Nil.
(By Order)
(Sd/-)
Senior Superintendent.
Copy to:- (1) Xavier Thomas @ Baby, Mavelil, Mavelil House,
Punnaveli P.O., Mallappally – 689 589.
(2) Thomas. P.D., News agent, Padinjathu Veedu,
Punnaveli P.O., Mallappally – 689 589.
(3) Circulation Manager, Malayala Manorama Unit,
Pathanamthitta.
(4) The Stock File.
