Complainant by filing this complaint has submitted thatcomplainant on 29.03.2013 subscribed for Times of India (TOI) Kolkata Edition for one year (308 days) commencing from April 2013 to March 2014 and paid Rs. 470/- only by cheque bearing Cheque No. 00030 dated 29.03.2013 upon Bank of Baroda, Garia Branch, Kolkata – 84 in favour of BENNETT, COLEMAN & Co. Ltd. and he also paid Rs. 20/- in cash for Sunday Times of India (STO) Kolkata Edition for one year (52 Sundays)commencing from 17.04.2013 to 23.03.2014 and the subscription was made through one RRE, Mr. SankarKayal (RRE Code No. 21590290). But there was no outstanding amount payable by the complainant to the ops against the subscriptions of The Times of India (TOI) Kolkata Edition and Sunday Times of India (STOI) Kolkata Edition till March, 2014.
Thereafter complainant received TOI and STOI at his residence from 1st April, 2013 to 10th January 2014 and the same was delivered by one ManotoshDuttta, the local vendor, Garia Depot. But surprisingly from 11.01.2014 Mr. Masnotosh Dutta stopped delivering the TOI and STOI at the residence of the complainant without any cogent reason and without any notice and complainant being unable to understand the reason, he enquired the matter and came to know that from Mr. Manotosh Dutta that the authorities of The Times of India directed the complainant not to deliver any TOI and STOI at the residence of the complainant and hearing this complaint, complainant wrote a letter on 20.01.2014 addressed to the op no.1 and alleging the fact and requested the authorities to take immediate corrective actions and also requested them to send the same at his residence. But the op did not give any reply to the letter issued by the complainant about such arbitrary, derogatory and illegal action for not delivery TOI and STOI at his residence from 11.01.2014.
Fact remains that complainant has a good habit of reading newspaper and to acquire knowledge about world affairs and to increase his general knowledge in English knowledge and enrich himself the vocabulary in English knowledge and it is also a great source of entertainment. But due to negligent and deficient manner of service and breach of trust as per terms and conditions to subscribe newspapers, op has acted illegally and for which complainant has prayed for redressal and for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- against op.
On the other hand op no.3 M/s. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. by filing written version submitted that the entire complaint is misleading and false. But admittedly complainant gave a cheque of Rs. 470/- dated 29.03.2013 in favour of M/s. Bennet Coleman & Co. Ltd. against subscription of Times of India Newspaper and op returned the said cheque at the complainant’s residential address on the very next day through the person, who booked the subscription as the cheque was returned to the complainant he was not given the coupons and no consideration was passed to the ops and the complainant is not a consumer as per the C.P. Act and it is also important to mention that ops can only be held for deficiency of service and even then regular supply of newspaper was made but even then complainant did not pay the said amount of Rs. 470/-.
Moreover ops have no role to play in distribution of newspaper to the complainant and the complainant might not have provided the vendor with the payment and that may be the reason for alleged stoppage of supply of newspaper by newspaper vendor to the complainant for which vendor is the right person to answer and while asking for coupon of annual subscription of newspaper, complainant could not provide the same to the local vendor stating of non-receipt of the same from the ops for which might be local vendor did not supply it.
But fact remains that complainant received the said newspaper from 01.04.2013 to 10.01.2014 and thereafter from 21.03.2014 to 31.03.2014 but without payment of subscription. So, in all respect the entire complaint is false and fabricated and practically complainant may contact with SankarKayal and vendor Manotosh Dutta and truth is that this cheque was never encashed and it was returned to the complainant and complainant has not disclosed the same and in fact the entire complaint is fabricated and for which the complaint should be dismissed.
Decision with reasons
On proper consideration of the entire complaint and written version and also considering the admitted position of the fact that complainant received the TOI& STOI regularly from 01.04.2013 to 10.01.2014 and thereafter vendor asked the complainant to supply the payment order. But complainant failed to produce it. Truth is that complainant handed over a cheque to SankarKayal a distributor of the op TOI and thereafter that cheque was returned to the complainant for some defect. But with hope the distributor and the vendor supplied the said paper timely up to 10.01.2014 thereafter from 21.03.2014 to 31.03.2014. Only from the period of 11.03.2014 to 20.03.2014 newspapers were not supplied by the vendor.
But fact remains that the complainant failed to show the coupon of spending balance of Rs. 470/- and at the time or argument this Forum asked the complainant to show that the said cheque was encashed by the op when the complainant’s Ld. Lawyer personally disclosed that. Fact remains the cheque was not encashed and it is fact. Then it is clear that the complainant did not pay Rs. 470/- as per contract form and without payment he enjoyed the Times of India from 01.04.2013 to 10.01.2014 and also from 21.03.2014 to 31.03.2014. Only 69 days TOI was not supplied because complainant was failed to produce any payment of Rs. 470/-. But after considering the entire fact and submission of the Ld. Lawyer including the defence of the op, we are confirmed that this complaint is filed by the complainant falsely and only to harass and truth is that contract was there in between the distributor of the TOI, vendor and the complainant. No doubt the cheque was handed over and thereafter the cheque was returned to the complainant and admitted position is that the cheque was notencashed by the op that means complainant enjoyed TOI from 01.04.2013 to 10.01.2014 and 21.03.2014 to 31.03.2014 without any payment but that has not been disclosed before this Forum. It indicates that the complainant is a so called dishonest consumer and in fact he is not a consumer under the op in view of the fact that complainant did not pay the any subscription of the same i.e. Rs. 470/- to TOI. This factor has not been disclosed before this Forum but complainant appeared before this Forum praying for compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/-. It is no doubt ishonest intention of the complainant.
Truth is that complainant already enjoyed 239 days publication of TOI without payment. Then it is no doubt an act of dishonest person like complainant and such complainant appeared before this Forum to get compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- having its status that he has suppressed the fact that he did not pay any subscription of Rs. 470/- but only pay Rs. 20/-. But considering the entire fact and circumstances and admission of the Ld. Lawyer in respect of non-encashment of the said cheque we are confirmed that this is a vexatious complaint and complainant is not consumer in view of the fact that he did not pay the entire amount of Rs. 470/- at all but enjoyed 239 copies of TOI practically at a free of cost and so such a complainant should be penalized for harassing the ops in such a manner and also for submitting a false and vexatious complaint before this Forum when the entire allegation of the complainant is proved false story and when it is proved that complainant did not pay any subscription of TOI for a sum of Rs. 470/- which is admitted by the complainant’s Ld. Lawyer for which complaint bears no merit.
Hence, it is
ORDERED
That the complaint be and the same is dismissed on contest against all the ops.
For filing vexatious false and fabricated complaint before this Forum and also for wasting valuable time of the Forum to determine such a vexation complaint, complainant is imposed penal cost of Rs. 5,000/- which shall be deposited to this Forum and at the same time complainant shall have to pay Rs. 500/- to the op no.3 against supply of 239 copies of TOI in respect of which no payment was made by the complainant and it must be paid by the complainant by demand draft in the name of op no.3.
Complainant shall have to comply the order of this Forum failing which penal action shall be started against him and for which further penalty and fine may be imposed.
