KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION VAZHUTHACAUD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. APPEAL No. 738/2006 JUDGMENT DATED: 27-01-2010 PRESENT: JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU : PRESIDENT APPELLANT The Secretary, Pallivasal Grama Panchayat, Pallivasal P.O., 2nd Mile. (Rep. by Adv. Sri. S. Reghukumar) Vs RESPONDENT V.T. Saseendran, LIC Agent, Vadayattukunnel House, Adimali P.O. (Rep. by Adv. C. Gopalakrishnan Nair) JUDGMENT JUSTICE SHRI. K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT The appellant is the opposite party in CC No. 37/06 in the file of CDRF, Idukki. The appellant is under orders to take back the balance number of books unsold on payment of Rs. 495/- per copy within 30 days and in case the opposite party refuses to do so, the complainant is allowed to realize the amount on production of the books before the Forum. The opposite party is also directed to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 7,350/- being the price of the undelivered copies and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1,500/- as costs and that if the amounts are not paid within 30 days of receipt of the copy of the order, the amount would carry interest at 12%. 2. It is the case of the complainant that he entrusted the printing of the book “Gurudharamam” in the Offset Press of the opposite party. The printing as well as the plate making was entrusted with the opposite party. The entrustment was on 18-12-2004 and it was agreed to return the printed copies on 29-12-2004. The agreement was to print 1000 copies for a sum of Rs. 49,000/-. It was also agreed that the plate making and printing would be done in such a way that machine binding would be possible. Although the agreement was to complete the printing by 29-12-2004 the opposite party delivered the printed matter only on 12-04-2005. The plates were of low quality and hence the same could not be used further. On account of the defects in setting the demi, machine binding could not be done and manual binding had to be resorted to. Hence he had to incur Rs. 5/- extra per copy and also the binding got delayed. Further, in a number of pages there are serious printing mistakes. At the time of binding, it was found that the copies supplied were only of 850 books. The complainant had intended to release the books at the time of Sivagiri pilgrimage. As the printing got delayed he could not release the books in time. He had got the books produced after taking loan from the bank and borrowing amounts. He has sustained considerable loss on account of the delay in printing and the defects in printing. He has sought for a sum of Rs. 2,40,500/- as compensation. 3. The opposite parties have filed version denying the allegations. It is denied that there was any agreement to print the matter as in a manner ready for machine binding. Infact, the direction was to set the demi enabling manual binding. It is also contended that the raw plates were supplied by the complainant himself. It was on account of the third-rate plates supplied that the same could not be used again. It is also contended that on 18-12-2004, the complainant had paid only Rs. 5,000/- as advance and the 75% of the amount was orally agreed to be paid within one week. But on 23-12-2004 he paid only Rs. 14,000/- and requested that he is not in a position to pay the amount and that the work need be completed in a slow manner. As he could not manage the amount till April 2005 the works were not completed urgently. In the first week of April 2005, the complainant told that the amount is ready and on 08-04-2005 he paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/-. On 12-04-2005 when the printed matter was handed over only Rs. 6,000/- was paid. He had promised to pay the balance amount on the next day. Later on 02-05-2005 he gave a cheque for Rs. 13,500/- dated 30-04-2000. The cheque was submitted for encashment for a number of times but was not encashed. Lawyer notice was sent on 24-10-2005. So far no reply has been received. It is also pointed out that the printed matter was supplied in DTP and that if any mistakes are there in the printed matter, the responsibility is of the complainant, who got the matter converted in DTP. There was no case for the complainant that the number of copies are less. The usual practice is to supply 5% more of the ordered copies. He had issued cheque for Rs. 13,500/- stating that only that much of amount is the balance in his account and that the balance Rs. 500/- he shall pay in cash. 4. The evidence adduced consisted of the testimony of PW1, DWs 1 and 2, Exts. P1 to P6, R1 to R6, X1 and X2. 5. It has been pointed out by the Counsel for the appellant/opposite party that the order of the Forum would work out to payment of amounts much more than that has been claimed in the complaint. The direction to pay the price of the unsold copies at the rate of Rs. 495/- per copy would work out to more than 4,02,000/- as the copies printed are 850. The amount of compensation claimed in the complaint is only Rs. 2,40,500/- and out of which the price of the books that could not be sold on account of the delayed printing is mentioned as Rs. 1,00,000/- and the amount claimed as the book had to be sold at a reduced price on account of printing mistakes is Rs. 25,500/-. 6. We find that Ext.P1 is the Order Form wherein the date of the order is mentioned as 18-12-2004 and the date of supply of printed matter is mentioned as 29-12-2004 and the estimated amount as Rs. 49,000/- and the quantity as 1000. Ext P2 is the invoice dated 12-04-2005 for the printing of 1000 copies of the book having 1152 pages. The amount is mentioned as 49,000/-. Ext.P3 is the receipt for payment of Rs. 25,500/- for the binding of 850 copies. Ext P4 series are the receipts, dated 18-12-2004 for payment of Rs. 5,000, dated 23-12-2004 for payment of Rs. 14,000/-, dated 08-04-2005 for payment of Rs. 10,000/- and dated 11-04-2005 for payment of Rs. 6,000/-. The above amounts to Rs. 35,000/-. Ext.P6 letter dated 05-05-2005 issued by the complainant to the opposite party alleging the mistakes in printing etc. and intimating that the cheque for Rs. 13,500/- is to be sent for collection only after settling the issues. Ext.R2 is the cheque of Rs. 13,500/- dated 30-04-2005 issued by the complainant to the opposite party. Ext.R3 is the dishonour memo dated 25-08-2005 mentioning that funds are insufficient. Ext.R4 is another dishonour memo dated 10-10-2005 also noting the ground that the funds are insufficient. Ext.R5 is the lawyer notice issued by the opposite party dated 24-10-2005 intimating the dishonour and informing that steps would be taken u/s 138 of NI Act. Ext.X1 and X2 are the documents summoned by the complainant from the drawee bank. X2 dated 12-05-2005 is the copy of the letter issued by the complainant to the bank directing to return the cheque for Rs. 13,500/-. Ext.X1 is the statement of accounts with respect to the account of the complainant in the bank as per which on 12-05-2005 there is a balance of Rs. 16115.20 in the account of the complainant and also Rs. 13894.20 on 14-05-2005. 7. The complainant has testified as PW1 and the successor Secretary of the opposite party was examined as DW1. Both sides have testified in support of their respective contentions. Of course, DW1 was not a person then in charge of the affaires of the opposite party. It is the case of the complainant that the balance amount were not paid as the work was not in progress as promised. It was also pointed out that no evidence has been produced to prove that he intended to release the book at the time of Sivagiri pilgrimage. All the same, we find nothing to disbelieve the version of the complainant that the printed matter was not supplied in time. There is no recital in Ext.P1 order form that 75% of the amount is to be paid within one week. The case of the complainant that the printed matter amounted to only 850 copies appears true from the fact that Ext.P3 receipt of binding is with respect to 850 copies. The contention of the opposite parties that the matter was supplied in DTP and hence the printing mistakes cannot be the responsibility of the opposite parties has to be upheld. It was contended that in many pages the ink was seen spread and certain portions were blurred. The same are not stated in the complaint. On a perusal of Ext.P4 the copy of the book also were could not come across such matters although the copy shown at the time of hearing contained the above defects. Ofcourse, the complainant has paid Rs. 35,000/- to the opposite parties and Rs. 25,500/- for binding. Rs.14,000/- is due to the opposite party but only 850 copies have been supplied. Exactly how many copies he could sell or as to whether any copies have been sold the only evidence is the testimony of PW1. He has not stated the number of books that he could sell and the number of books that remains with him. Hence there can be no specific finding on the above matter. All the same, the complainant has to be compensated for the loss that he has sustained. The opposite parties have not executed the work properly in time. In the circumstances, the order of the Forum is liable to be modified. The direction to pay the value of the unsold number of books at the rate of Rs. 495/- per copy is set aside. The direction to pay Rs. 7,350/-, the cost of the undelivered copies is set aside as he has not paid the full amount for 850 copies even. The direction to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- is modified. The appellant/opposite parties are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 35,000/- as compensation to the complainant. The direction to pay costs of Rs. 1,500/- sustained. The opposite parties/appellant would also be liable to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum on Rs. 35,000/- from the date of the complaint ie, 14-02-2006. The appeal is allowed in part as above. The office is directed to forward the LCR to the Forum urgently. JUSTICE K.R. UDAYABHANU: PRESIDENT |
