A Mohan Reddy vs Venkataramana Reddy

THIS Revision Petition has been filed by the complainant against the order dated 11th February, 1994 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad in C.D.A. No. 66/94. By the impugned Order the State Commission confirmed the order of the District Forum, Chittoor which has dismissed the complaint of the complainant.

WE have heard the Revision Petitioner and gone through the records of the case. The Respondent has not appeared inspite of due intimation. Opposite party No. 1 is the Advertisement Manager of the Udayam Daily Newspaper while opposite party No. 2 is its Business Manager. The case of the complainant is that he wanted to sell away his house plots near Chittoor in order to raise money to meet the expenses of litigation pending in High Court. He intended to get the advertisement published in district edition of the Udayam Daily dated 18th April, 1993 and paid Rs. 200/ - towards the advertising charges. However, that advertisement did not appear on 18th April, 1993 and instead appeared on 20th April, 1993. The grievance of the complainant is that 18th April, 1993 was Sunday and if the advertisement had appeared in the newspaper on that date the business community at Chittoor would have had the opportunity to see the advertisement at leisure and would have approached him and he would have sold the sites at good price. The complainants allegation is that as the advertisement did not appear on Sunday but on some other day, he could not get good price and he is obliged to sell the sites at the rate of Rs. 100/ - per sq. yd. while the site was worth Rs. 140/ - per sq. yd. He thus suffered a loss of Rs. 25,000/ - due to the negligence and deficiency in service of the opposite parties.

THE opposite parties in the counter pleaded that they never assured the complainant that the matter would be published on 18.4.93. On the oral representation of the complainant the matter was published on 20th April, 1993. It was further averred that the complainant has not suffered any loss as he has not sold any site.

THE District Forum held that there was no material on record to show that the complainant expressly wanted the matter to be published on 18th April, 1993 only. It was further held that no loss has occurred to the complainant as he has not sold the site as yet. Accordingly it dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved the complainant approached the State Commission in Appeal. The State Commission also held that there was no stipulation that the matter should be published in the District Edition of the Udayam Daily on 18th April, 1993. It has also confirmed the finding of the District Forum that the complainant has not disposed of his plot and, therefore, it could not be held that he has suffered any loss on account of the advertisement having been published on 20th April, 1993 instead of 18th April, 1993. Accordingly, it has dismissed the appeal.

THERE is concurrent finding of the District Forum as well as the State Commission that there was no stipulation while giving the matter to the opposite parties, now respondents, that the matter be published in the District Edition of 18th April, 1993. The petitioner has not produced any material to show that the said finding of the Forums below is vitiated by any error or illegal exercise of jurisdiction. Thus, we do not find any force in the Revision Petition and dismiss the same. We make no order as to costs as none has appeared for the respondent. Petition dismissed.