CLIPPER HOLIDAYS vs M And N PUBLICATIONS LTD.

IN this complaint, under Section 17 r/w Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant has sought compensation in a sum of Rs. 12,50,000/- from the opposite party. The complainant is a Proprietorship concern carrying on the business of travels and tours involving hotel reservations, car and bus hire, ticketing and ship cruises. The opposite party is an advertising company dealing in publishing the ''yellow pages'' for Bombay, Delhi, Madras, Coimbatore, Bangalore, Mangalore, Hyderabad and Ernakulam Telephone Directories. 1. The complainant was advertising his concern regularly with the opposite party in ''yellow pages'' since few years both in Bangalore and Madras. The complainant booked advertisements for 1994-95 Bangalore telephone directory under categories - hotel reservation services and travel bureau. The opposite party published the said advertisement in ''yellow pages'' negligently, the consequence of which was the advertisements appeared interchanged.

THE complainant booked advertisement for 1994-95 Madras Telephone Directory under the category ''hotel reservation services and hotels out of own reservation services''. THE said advertisements were published in the directory under wrong address and wrong telephone numbers. THE Madras office address was wrongly mentioned with Bangalore pin code and Madras telephone number was wrongly mentioned in Bangalore STD code. This was due to the gross negligence on the part of the opposite party and the consequence was that the complainant suffered huge loss in his business. The complainant further averred that on noticing these defects in the publications, he brought to the notice of the opposite party. The opposite party failed to indemnify the complainant, though it refunded the amount of Rs. 8,62425 paid by the complainant for publication of these advertisements. The complainant, on the basis of these averments, sought a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- from the opposite party towards loss sustained in business and a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- towards the loss of work and also for mental agony, suffering undergone by him.

The opposite party filed its version, admitted the fact that the advertisements published in Bangalore Telephone Directory for 199495, appeared interchanged and the publication in the 1994-95 Madras Telephone Directory it mistakenly had shown the Bangalore pin code and Bangalore STD code. The opposite party averred that this was an accidental slip and there was no question of any negligence on the part of the opposite party. The opposite party nextly averred that this omission was brought to the notice of the complainant and the entire amount paid by the complainant was refunded to him. This error was due to an error in proof reading which the opposite party could not avoid inspite of its best efforts in the matter. This was only a minor omission which had crept in due to an error in proof reading.

THE opposite party further averred that the complainant had signed a contract with the opposite party agreeing that the opposite party would not be held responsible for any error or omission in printing, so the complainant is not entitled to make any grievance in the matter. THE opposite party, on the basis of these averments, sought the complaint to be dismissed. During enquiry, the complainant filed his affidavit in evidence and got Ex. C-1 to C-8 marked in evidence. The Accounts Officer of the opposite party filed the affidavit in evidence and got Ex. C-1 and R-2 marked in evidence.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings and the material on record. It is not disputed that the advertisements given by the complainant for publication in ''yellow pages in the Bangalore Telephone Directory 1994-95 came to be interchanged. It is also not disputed that the advertisement given by the complainant for publication in ''yellow pages'' of Madras Telephone Directory 1994-95 gave a Bangalore pin code and Bangalore STD number. The opposite party averred that this omission was due to an error in proof reading which the opposite party could not avoid inspite of its best efforts.

HAVING regard to these admitted facts, it is clear that this mistake was due to the negligence of the opposite party. HAVING regard to these facts, we are constrained to hold that the opposite party committed deficiency in service in publishing the advertisements given by the complainant negligently in yellow pages of Bangalore and Madras Telephone Directory for the year 1994-95.

THE complainant has sought compensation for this act of the opposite party in a sum of Rs. 7,50,000/- for the business loss suffered by him, in a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs for the mental agony and suffering undergone by him. In our opinion, this claim made by the complainant is highly excessive and has no relation with the loss alleged to have been suffered by him. THE complainant has not placed any material on record except his affidavit to show that he had suffered a loss of Rs. 7,50,000/- in business. The Bihar State Commission, while considering such of the facts in Kayne Constructions Pvt. Ltd. v. Printers India & Others, reported in III (1995) CPJ 438, observed thus : "Under the circumstances, the opposite party No. 1 is directed to pay back Rs. 450/- to the complainant with 16%) interest per annum thereon from the date of its receipt from the complainant till the date of its payment to the complainant. The opposite party No. 1 is also being directed to pay Rs. 5,000/- only as compensation for the financial loss in business and Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for mental anguish to which the complainant has been put due to this unfair trade practice adopted by the opposite party No. 1. The opposite party No. 1 is further directed to pay Rs. 500/- as cost to the complainant."

Having regard to the facts and in the circumstances of the case, we deem it proper to award a reasonable sum as compensation towards the loss suffered by the complainant in his business, we quantify the said compensation in a sum of Rs. 10,000/- (Ten thousand) only and we also deem it proper to award a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand) only towards mental agony and suffering undergone by him. ORDER In the result, therefore, this complaint is allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen thousand) only towards the financial loss, mental agony and suffering undergone by the complainant. The opposite party is also directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees two thousand and five hundred) only to the complainant towards costs of this proceeding. The opposite party shall pay the sums so awarded to the complainant within a period of 60 (sixty) days from this day. Complaint allowed by costs.