Back
KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President &
Prof. R. Vijayakrishnan, Member
SECRETARY GENERAL, M.A. VAHAB, CENTRE OF INDIAN
CONSUMER PROTECTION & RESEARCH & ANR.—Complainants
versus
SHANMUKHA SUNDAREM—Respondent
O.P. No. 6 of 1999—Decided on 28.5.2002
Counsels for the Parties :
For the Complainants :Mr. M.A. Rahim, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Rajeev S.S., Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's interpretation of the complainant's status as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, the opposite party's deficiency in service, and the award of compensation to the complainant.
Headnote:
Consumer Dispute - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Section 2(1)(d), Section 14(1) - The court found in favor of the complainant, a registered voluntary consumer organization, and a sole proprietorship concern, against the opposite party, a printing service provider, for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. The court held that the complainant was a consumer under Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, as the transaction involved availing services for consideration, and not the sale of goods. The court also established the opposite party's negligence and deficiency in service, awarding the complainant compensation of Rs. 3,00,000, to be paid within three months, with interest at 12% if not paid within the stipulated time. The complainant was also awarded costs of Rs. 5,000.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a consumer organization, and a sole proprietorship concern, entered into an agreement with the opposite party for printing and delivery of books. The opposite party failed to deliver books of the agreed quality and engaged in unfair trade practices, causing the complainant financial loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the complainant, establishing the complainant's status as a consumer, the court's jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, the opposite party's deficiency in service, and the complainant's entitlement to compensation.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant is a consumer and the complaint maintainable? 2. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the complaint? 3. Whether the opposite party engaged in unfair trade practices and deficiency in service? 4. Whether the complainant is entitled to compensation, and if so, the quantum? 5. Reliefs and costs?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complainant was a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, and the court had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. The court established the opposite party's deficiency in service and negligence, awarding compensation to the complainant. The court also awarded costs to the complainant.
Final Decision: The court directed the opposite party to pay Rs. 3,00,000 as compensation to the complainant within three months, failing which interest at 12% would apply. The complainant was also awarded costs of Rs. 5,000.
Mr. Justice L. Manoharan, President—Complaint for direction to the opposite party to pay compensation and also for incidental reliefs.
2. Complainants’ case in brief is as follows : First complainant is a registered voluntary consumer organisation to take up the causes of consumers and to safeguard their interest. The second complainant is engaged in publishing books having a concern in the name and style Lal Bahadur Sasthri Education Publishing House and Oriental Books, a sole proprietory concern. Opposite party provides offset printing services to consumers on payment. Second complainant entered into an agreement with the opposite party for printing and delivery of book by name “Katha Sarith Sagaram” having 808 pages. For printing and processing the charge was fixed at Rs. 57,000/- for 2500 books and the binding charge per book at Rs. 12/-, the amount had to be paid at delivery. As per the printed proforma Ext. P1, second complainant paid Rs. 20,000/- in cash, and later, on 20.5.1998 a draft for Rs. 10,000/- was also given to the opposite party. Thus a total amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid to the opposite party by the second complainant. The time stipulated for delivery of the books was June 1998 at Thiruvananthapuram. Opposite party violated the said condition, there was an understanding that 900 copies to be made available at the first instance and later 1600 copies would be supplied. The payments are to be paid at Thiruvananthapuram at delivery. As per the contract second complainant has to supply paper and the second complainant made available paper worth Rs. 1,124,494/- along with Rs. 1,558/- incidental expenses. The paper was supplied by Sri Sapthagiri Agencies. Cash payment of Rs. 57,500/- was made to the concern and a cheque for Rs. 2,500/- also was given to Sri Sapthagiri Agencies. The balance amount was secured by post-dated cheques for an amount of Rs. 64,494/-. The paper was supplied to the opposite party. Later the balance amount was paid and the said cheques were returned. On 30.7.1998 opposite party delivered 100 volumes through Muthu Priya Lorry Service. He issued bill for Rs. 3,530/-. The same was to be adjusted against the 30,000/- already paid. But the said hundred books were not properly bound, or irregular shape having different size on both sides, the stitching was of inferior quality and the cutting of the books was also not regular. The said books thus were of inferior quality. The same was brought to the notice of the opposite party; the charges for the 900 volumes was already with the opposite party, and Rs. 1,770/- was necessary to cover whole the charges for the said 900 copies. Complainant got the books examined and obtained Ext. P3 certificate. Though complainant informed the opposite party as to the defects neither did the opposite party cure the defects, nor did he supply even the 800 copies. He insisted for payment of the charges for 2500 copies. Complainant send a notice on 31.8.1998 calling upon to compensate the complainant. On receipt of the notice opposite party send reply on 21.12.1998 making false allegations. On receipt of the said notice the second complainant visited the concern of the opposite party to see whether 800 bound books are of improved quality, but it was found to be not of the quality promised. Then opposite party caused to publish newspapers notice-cum-tender notice for the sale of books for which the complainant had paid consideration. The matter was brought to the notice of the police, because of the said act of the opposite party complainant suffered loss as he could not sell the books and thereby he incurred loss. The price per volume is fixed was Rs. 640/-. 30% of the same even when is deducted towards commission, the loss to the complainant would be Rs. 10,75,200/-. The service of the opposite party for printing a small booklet, English grammar having 80 pages was also availed and for that art work an amount of Rs. 11,000/- were given. Complainant also gave si
