Mahendra Thakur vs DAINIK BHASKAR (DAINIK SAMACHAR PATRA)

THIS appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is directed against the order dated 28th September, 2002 in Complaint No. 149/2002 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Durg (hereinafter called the ''District Forum'' for short) dismissing the complaint of the complainant/appellant.

THE complainant/appellant averred that the marriage of his nephew was to take place on 22.2.2002 at village Bija. Since the marriage was finalised at short notice before the date of the marriage, the complainant thought it fit to get the invitation published in the newspaper ''Dainik Bhaskar'' instead of sending individual invitation cards to the friends and relatives, etc. Accordingly on 18.2.2002 the complainant went to the office of the respondent No. 1 and deposited an amount of Rs. 1,000/- with respondent No. 2 for the said publication. THE complainant further averred that though the respondent No. 2 had assured that invitation would be published in the newspaper dated 22.2.2002, but it was not so published hence the invitees could not get intimation about the marriage, which resulted in humiliation, inconvenience and harassment to the complainant. THE complainant, therefore, claimed compensation on account of deficiency in service as above on the part of the respondents. The respondents denied the averments as above. According to them the publication was only for ''Mangal Parinaya'' and not by way of invitation to the relatives of the complainant. It was also averred that the respondent had refunded to the complainant on 23.2.2002 the amount of Rs. 1,000/- deposited by him. It was also averred that there is no justification for the complainant to claim compensation.

The District Forum in the impugned order held that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the respondent and as the amount deposited by the complainant was refunded to the complainant on 23.3.2002, the complainant was not entitled to any compensation. The complaint was accordingly dismissed.

IT is undisputed that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was deposited by the complainant, Mahendra Thakur with the respondents. The copy of the matter given for publication to be made, is not filed on record by the complainant. The copy of the receipt filed on record indicates that the amount was paid towards marriage ''Vigyapan''. Moreover, even according to allegation in the complaint, the advertisement was proposed to be published in the newspaper ''Bhaskar'' on 22.2.2002. The wedding was also undisputedly to take place on 22.2.2002. Obviously, therefore, if the publication was by way of invitation, the matter thereof could have been got published by the complainant at least a few days earlier rather than on the wedding day itself. Therefore, it appears that it was merely a publication of ''Mangal Parinaya'' which is by way of intimation that the wedding is to take place as has been asserted by the respondent. IT has not been proved by the complainant that the said publication was by way of invitation to the relatives and friends. However, it is also clear that the complainant though deposited the amount for publication, the said publication did not take place. No proper reason has been assigned by the respondents as to why after accepting the amount, the publication was not made? May be the purpose of the publication was by way of general intimation regarding marriage. However, the non-publication thereof without any justifiable reason by the respondents amounts to deficiency in service, on their part. Though the appellant has failed to prove any specific loss caused on account of non-publication, yet it is clear that the intent and purpose with which the complainant intended to get the matter published remained unfulfilled. Therefore, the observation of District Forum, that since the respondents have refunded the amount, there was no deficiency in service, by them, was clearly not justified. In the circumstances of the case, in our opinion, nominal compensation of Rs. 1,000/- on account of deficiency in service by the respondents will meet the ends of justice.

ACCORDINGLY, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is set aside. It is ordered that the respondent shall pay to the complainant compensation of Rs. 1,000/- (one thousand) only. The respondent shall deposit the said amount within a period of two months from the date of this order failing which they would also be liable to pay interest @ 12% per annum from the date of default. The respondent shall also pay the post of this appeal to the complainant which is quantified at Rs. 500/- (five hundred) only. Appeal allowed.