MANAGING DIRECTOR, MANASASTHRAM PUBLICATIONS vs P.K. GEORGE

THIS appeal is filed against the order of the District Forum, Palakkadu in O.P. No. 47/92. The appellant herein was the Ist opposite party before the District Forum. The Ist Respondent and the 2nd Respondent herein were the complainant and 2nd opposite party respectively before the District Forum.

THE case of the complainant/ Ist Respondent was as follows. THE complainant is a life subscriber of Manasasthram Magazine since 10.5.77 and he was getting the Magazine regularly till July, 1987. Towards life membership he had paid Rs. 100/-. After July, 1987 he was not getting the Magazine and therefore, he approached Consumer Protection Council, Palakkadu District Committee and accepting the advice of the Council the Ist opposite party/appellant settled the matter by paying Rs. 540/- towards cost of missed issue of the periodicals and resuming supply of publications thereafter. He used to get the Magazine till August, 1991 and afterwards the Ist opposite party failed to send the Magazine. Hence a complaint was filed by him claiming a compensation and demanding regular supply of the Magazine. The District Forum allowed the complaint directing the appellant/Ist opposite party to send the Magazine regularly in future and to pay the cost of the Magazine from September, 1991 till the date of resuming the supply of the Manasasthram Magazine at the rate of Rs. 5/- per month and an amount of Rs. 200/- as compensation. Aggrieved by that order this appeal has been filed.

It was submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that before the District Forum, the case was posted for the version of the opposite parties on 20.8.92 and on 18.8.92 itself by speed post, appellant sought an adjournment for filing the version, and that the District Forum passed the order on 23.9.92 without giving a reasonable opportunity to the appellant to file the version and to adduce evidence. The learned Counsel further contended that before the institution of the complaint before the District Forum, the matter was brought before the Consumer Protection Council, District Committee by the complainant and the matter was settled between the complainant and the 1st opposite party/Appellant by paying sum of Rs. 540/- as compensation to the complainant. In support of this contention, the appellant produced before us a document dated, 13.5.91 signed by the complainant. In that it was acknowledged by the complainant that a sum of Rs. 540/- was received by him from the Consumer Protection Council, Palakkadu towards the ''Manasasthram Publication Compensation''.

WE do not think it proper to take a decision now on the basis of this document as it was not produced before the District Forum. But we feel that the District Forum did not care to give sufficient opportunities to the appellant to file the version and to adduce evidence. WE are of the view that for the purpose of adjudication of the complaint the District Forum ought to have given sufficient opportunities to the appellant to file its version and to adduce necessary evidence. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion we set aside the order of the District Forum and remit back the complaint for its fresh disposal. The District Forum is directed to give the Ist opposite party/appellant opportunity to file its version and to give all the parties sufficient opportunities to adduce oral as well as documentary evidence.

IN the result, the order of the District Forum, Palghat in O.P. No. 47/92 is set aside and the case is remanded for its fresh disposal. The parties shall bear their own costs. Order set aside.