CURRENT LAW JOURNAL PUBLISHERS LTD. vs MANPREET SINGH SARAO

IT''s an appeal against the order dated 29.2.2000 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sangrur (hereinafter called the District Forum).

BRIEF facts stated in the complaint are that the appellant-opposite party (hereinafter called the opposite party) had started publishing various Law Journals and through its different publications made a scheme for the life membership of their respective journals regarding the law books and asked the general public to make a deposit with him then he will be issued anyone of their publications free of costs for life. The publications were described as under : "(I) Civil, Criminal and Revenue; (II) Services; (III) Banking and Corporate Law; (IV) Criminal; (V) Himachal Pradesh; (VI) Combined."

It was then stated in the complaint that the respondent-complainant (hereinafter called the complainant) had deposited his subscription with the opposite party and became a life member vide the life member certificate Membership No. PB-01966 from the year 1994 and the complainant was a member of Criminal Law Journal published by the opposite party. Life membership certificate, mentioned above, has been placed as Ex. C-1 on the record of the District Forum. It was then stated in the complaint that from the date of membership, the opposite party supplied the Criminal Law Journal to the complainant regularly at home without charging any postal charges till Janurary, 1998 and thereafter the opposite party stopped supplying the said Journal to the complainant. Opposite party rather, started demanding postal charges for which the complainant was not liable to pay as per terms and conditions of the life membership. Opposite party started alleging that life member was entitled to get journal only for 14 years. It was further stated that the stand of the opposite party was incorrect. Life member of the Journal was required to get the requisite Law Journal throughout his life without making any postal charges, whatsoever. It was then stated in the complaint that later on, the opposite party even started publishing in the Journal that expression life member shall means supply of Journal for a maximum period of 14 years (Postage Charges extra). The complainant had requested the opposite party that he could not impose any condition for the life Members who were made earlier as there was no such condition at the time of enrolment of the complainant as a life member of the Journal. The complainant had requested the opposite party time and again to supply the Journal regularly throughout his life and without claiming any postal charges, but the opposite party failed to give any proper reply. Ultimately, the opposite party had stopped supplying the Current Law Journal (Criminal) from January, 1998, which amounted to a deficiency in rendering service to the complainant and it was also an unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party. A prayer was made in the complaint that the opposite party be directed to continue supply of Law Journal (Criminal) and further not to claim any postal charges for sending Law Journal and to continue sending the same during the life-time of the complainant. A direction was sought to be made to the opposite party to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation on account of mental pain and agony, and Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses.

After service of the notice of the complaint, opposite party appeared and filed written statement. Some preliminary objections were taken, which included that the complaint was not competent in the present form and it deserved to be dismissed and the complainant was stopped by his own act and conduct as per order form No. 912 dated 29.3.1994 signed by him.

ON merits, Life Membership was admitted but it was submitted that the Life Membership was restricted only for 14 years. It was also stated in the reply that the Journal was to be collected from Chandigarh as per the Order Form. It was denied in the reply that the opposite party had ever agreed to post the Journal free of cost. Opposite party had posted the Journal upto December, 1998 as the postal authorities charged concessional rates, which facility was passed over to the subscribers. But the said concession was withdrawn by the postal authorities and thus, the opposite party had published the notices in the Journals for payment of annual postal charges which the subscriber was liable to pay. Otherwise, the subscriber was at liberty to collect their Journal from Chandigarh as per order form referred to above. It was stated in the reply that opposite party had stopped posting of Journals from January, 1999 as the complainant did not pay the postal charges as levelled by the postal authorities. It was then stated in the reply that the complainant could collect the Journal from the office of the opposite party as per agreement. Neither the complainant visited the office of the opposite party to collect the Journal nor any written request was made to the opposite party. It was then stated in the reply that life membership of the subscriber was restricted to 14 years in the case of individuals and to 10 years in the case of Institutions, Government Bodies and District Bar Association etc. Copy of one of the Order Form of Bar Association, Panipat was attached, which find place on the record of the case. It was denied by the opposite party in its reply that the life member meant through and through the life of the individual but it was restricted upto 14 years, which was made clear to the complainant on the very first day. Life membership certificate issued to complainant was admitted, however, it was stated that the complainant had failed to produce any letter as alleged in Para No. 4 of the complaint. It was stated in the reply that the complainant was not entitled to any of the prayers made in the complaint. Ultimately, a prayer was made that the complaint be dismissed with costs. After perusal of the documents on the record, District Forum partly allowed the complaint and issued a direction to opposite party to continue to supply the monthly Journal i.e. the Current Law Journal (Criminal) to the complainant throughout his life-time as a life member without charging any postal charges. It was also ordered that the opposite party will also pay an amount of Rs. 1,000/- as costs and compensation to the complainant. Hence this appeal.

WE have heard the learned Counsel for the opposite party and have gone through the record of the case minutely. The dispute between the parties relates to a breach of contract alleged to have been entered into by the parties. Even otherwise disputed questions of facts were involved in the complaint. It has not been alleged in the complaint though it has been stated in his affidavit by the complainant that the opposite party was to issue Current Law Journal (Criminal) without any postal charges but that contention has been specifically denied by the opposite party in preliminary objection No. 3 of its written statement, which reads as under : "3. That the complainant is estopped by his own act and conduct as per Order Form No. 912 dated 29.3.1994 signed by him." Photostat copy of the Order Form No. 912 dated 29.3.1994 is placed on the file along with the grounds of appeal, which clearly shows that the delivery of the Journal was to be made at Chandigarh. In any case, the above said assertion made by the opposite party has not been denied by the complainant. This is only one of the disputed questions of facts, which is mentioned by us. It is not necessary to advert to other disputed facts, which arise for determination in this case. In these circumstances, we find that it is not a fit case, which could be adjudicated before the District Forum in a summary manner under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In these circumstances, we allow this appeal and set aside the order dated 29.2.2000 of the District Forum. It may be mentioned here that the complainant is at liberty to knock the door of the Civil Court for adjudication of lis between the parties in accordance with law, if so advised. Appeal allowed.