BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM<br /> VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.<br /> PRESENT<br /> SRI. G. SIVAPRASAD : PRESIDENT<br /> SMT. BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> SMT. S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No. 500/2003 Filed on 20.12.2003<br /> Dated : 15.07.2008<br /> <br /> Complainant:<br /> <br /> Richard Gomez, “Aswathy”, T.C 14/1511(1), Thycaud, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> <br /> (By adv. A. Santhosh Kumar)<br /> <br /> Opposite party:<br /> <br /> The Unit Manager,Deshabhimani Daily,Thiruvananthapuram.<br /> <br /> (By adv. K. Satheesh Kumar)<br /> This complaint is disposed of after the period so specified under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the case was taken up for orders by the predecessors of this Forum on 23.09.2005, the order was not prepared accordingly. This Forum assumed office on 08.02.2008 and re-heard the complaint. This O.P having been heard on 15.05.2008, the Forum on 15.07.2008 delivered the following:<br /> ORDER<br /> SMT. S.K. SREELA: MEMBER<br /> The case of the complainant is as follows: the complainant had approached the opposite party for publishing an obituary of his father along with photograph in the last page of the Deshabhimani daily dated 13.12.2003 for which the opposite party had accepted the amount and receipt was also issued. But the said photograph and details were printed on the 9th page. The last page of the said paper, on that day, carried the advertisement of Bank Employees Federation of India, Kerala. This act of the opposite party is illegal and hence this complaint for mental agony and for refund of the amount collected from the complainant. <br /> The opposite party in their version contends as follows: the complaint is not maintainable. Deshabhimani daily published on 13.12.2003 carried an obituary of Sri. Antony Gomez on the 9th inner page as instructed and ordered by Smt. Lilly Antony, the wife of late Sri. Antony Gomez for which the payment was made by the complainant and receipt was also issued. It is further contended that, the tariff on advertisement applicable for the outer and inner pages are different and that the outer page costs more. The instruction of the complainant was for the inner page and the tariff duly collected as Rs. 1200/- as applied to the inner page. There is no deficiency in service on the part of opposite party. The complainant is not entitled for any refund. Hence prays for dismissal of the complaint with costs. <br /> The power of attorney holder of the complainant has been examined as PW1 and marked Exts. P1 to P5. Opposite party filed affidavit and Exts. D1 to D4 were marked. <br /> The issues that would arise for consideration are:-<br /> (i)Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?<br /> (ii)Reliefs and costs. <br /> Points (i) & (ii):- The complainant's allegation is that he had paid Rs. 1200/- to the opposite party for publishing an obituary of his father in the last page of Deshabhimani daily dated 13.12.2003. But the opposite party had published it on the 9th page of the daily which is the obituary page instead of last page. But according to the opposite party, they have published it in the inner page as per the instruction of the complainant and has collected the amount as per the tariff for the same. We perused the records on file. Ext. P4 is the original receipt issued to the complainant towards the advertisement. On a perusal of Ext. P4, it is seen that 'the sum of rupees one thousand two hundred only by cash towards advertisement on 13.12.2003'. There is no mentioning by the opposite party with regard to the details of the page or size of the advertisement. The opposite party has produced Ext. D2 which is the advertisement bill dated 13.12.2003. In Ext. D2 certain details are seen given. But this Ext. D2 has been issued after the publishing of the advertisement. The details mentioned in Ext. D2 are not seen in Ext. P4. When a customer approaches for publishing/advertising, the details regarding the advertisement as to in which page it is to be published, the size etc. are to be mentioned in the receipt as mentioned in the bill Ext. D2. What prevented the opposite party from detailing the same in Ext. P1 is doubtful. Moreover, as per Ext. P3, the photograph of the complainant's father is seen published on the last page. The photograph in dispute has been published the next year in the same paper but on the 9th page. At this juncture, when as per Ext. P3, the photograph is published in the last page for which an amount of Rs. 1200/- only has been paid which is evident from Ext. P2 dated 13.12.2002, it is obvious that the complainant would have expected the same this year also and made the payment for the same unless otherwise proved by the opposite party which has not been done in this case. What prevented the opposite party from mentioning the details in Ext. P4 is not known. The contents in Ext. P2 dated 13.12.2002 and P4 dated 09.12.2003 are the same. The opposite party contends that as per the tariff they have collected the amount and for the 9th page it will cost only Rs. 1200/- and for other outer pages it will exceed the amount. Ext. D3 is the advertising tariff of the opposite party. The dispute here is not with regard to the tariff rate, but with regard to the page on which the obituary was published. Ext. D3 advertising tariff is effective from 1st April 2003. The opposite party has not enlightened us as to which tariff is applicable in the case of the complainant. An amount of Rs. 1200/- has been seen collected from the complainant in 2002 and 2003. If at all there was any change in the tariff, it should have been brought to the notice of the complainant, and the opposite party should collect the amount accordingly. The opposite party has not produced the tariff rate applicable during 2002 to prove their bonafide. Moreover, the last page of the daily dated 13.12.2003 contain the advertisement of a bank. There is no space for any other advertisement also. <br /> In the above said circumstance, Ext. P2 dated 13.12.2002, Ext. P3, the obituary published on the basis of Ext. P2, Ext. P4 dated 09.12.2003 and Ext. P5, the obituary published on the basis of P4, prove the case of the complainant beyond any doubt. Considering all the materials on record we are of the view that the opposite party is deficient in their service in publishing the obituary of the complainant's father on the 9th page, instead of last page which is the outer page. Complainant has claimed for refund of the entire amount paid but since the obituary has already been published, though in the inner page instead of outer page, the entire amount cannot be ordered to be refunded, but we find that the complainant has to be definitely compensated for the above mentioned deficient act of the opposite party. Hence the complainant is found entitled for an amount of Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs. 500/- towards cost of the complaint. <br /> In the result, the opposite party is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 1000/- towards compensation and an amount of Rs. 500/- as costs to the complainant within a period of one month failing which the above amounts shall carry interest at 12% per annum. <br /> A copy of this order as per the statutory requirements be forwarded to the parties free of charge and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room. <br /> Dictated to the Confidential Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum, this the day of 15th July 2008.<br /> <br /> G. SIVAPRASAD President<br /> BEENAKUMARI. A : MEMBER<br /> <br /> S.K.SREELA : MEMBER<br /> O.P.No.500/2003<br /> APPENDIX<br /> I COMPLAINANT'S WITNESS : <br /> PW1 - Jayakaladevi<br /> II COMPLAINANT'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> P1 - Original special Power of Attorney<br /> P2 - Original receipt No. RC 13360 dated 13.12.2002 for Rs. 1200/- from Desabhimani, Thiruvananthapuram. <br /> P3 - Original Desabhimani Daily dated 14.12.2002.<br /> P4 - Original receipt No. RC 15514 dated 13.12.2003 for Rs. 1200/- from Deshabhimani, Tvpm. <br /> P5 - Original Desabhimani Daily dated 13.12.2003.<br /> III OPPOSITE PARTY'S' WITNESS :<br /> NIL<br /> IV OPPOSITE PARTY'S DOCUMENTS :<br /> D1 - Photocopy of receipt No. RC 15514 dated 09.12.2003 for Rs. 1200/-from Deshabhimani, Tvpm. <br /> D2 - Photocopy of advertisement Bill No. TH 14512 dated 13.12.2003 from Deshabhimani, Tvpm. <br /> D3 - Original Brochure showing the advertising tariff effective on 01-04-2003.<br /> <br /> PRESIDENT