National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Pustak Mahal vs Rattan Lal Premi on 22 March, 2004
Equivalent citations: III(2004)CPJ52(NC)
ORDER
Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
1. This revision petition arises out of the order dated 24.9.2001 of the Delhi State Commission in Appeal No. 223/1999. The brief facts of the case are as follows :
Respondent No. 1, Shri Rattan Lal Premi (the original complainant) filed a petition before the District Forum, Delhi alleging that he had purchased four books from the petitioner, Pustak Mahal and that the petitioner increased the price of the books by putting a sticker of the enhanced price on the original printed price and thereby committed an unfair trade practice.
He prayed that :
(a) the excess amount be ordered to be refunded to him along with adequate compensation and costs of litigation; and
(b) that the District Forum should direct the Government to raid the premises of various publishers who follow this practice and to seize all the books having stickers of enhanced price on them.
2. The District Forum vide its Order dated 28.1.1999 ordered refund of the extra amount of Rs. 46.50 and awarded cost of Rs. 500/-. Dissatisfied with the limited relief given by the District Forum, the complainant, Shri Premi approached the State Commission in appeal. In addition to enhancement of compensation, he prayed that the books with stickers belonging to the publisher be seized and a warning be given to him to prevent such occurrences in future. The Delhi State Commission which heard the appeal gave a further direction to the respondent to discontinue the unfair trade practice of putting stickers of enhanced price on the printed price of the books. It is against this order that Pustak Mahal has come in revision before us.
3. Respondent No. 1 filed an application in this Commission for appointing Amicus Curias to contest the case on his behalf. The Counsel, Mr. Rakesh Upadhyay has been appointed to defend the respondent at our request.
4. We have gone through the case papers and heard arguments for both the parties. The arguments of the Revision Petitioner is that the District Forum entertained the complaint by virtue of the provisions of Section 2(1)(c)(iv) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The clause which defined the word 'complaint' reads as follows :
"(2)(1)(c). Cornplaint' means any allegation in writing made by a complainant that--
(i) to (iii) xxxxxxx;
(iv) a trader has charged for the goods mentioned in the complaint a price in excess of the price fixed by or under any law for the time being in force or displayed on the goods or any package containing such goods."
Submissions :
5. It is argued that the State Commission erroneously held that the action of the revision petitioners amounts to an 'unfair trade practice' though the District Forum did not give any such finding. His argument is that the books in question were either published by him or he had acquired publishing rights, and that these books have been out of print for a very long time and is not readily available. As a publisher and copyright holder, he has every right to re-fix the price of the books which are rare and out of print.
6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the complainant knew the enhanced prices when he came to purchase the books. In fact the complainant himself persuaded and prevailed on the petitioner to sell the books. It is an agreed transaction between the parties and there was neither any deception nor any coercion. No law prohibits the publisher to re-fix the price of the books where such books are out of print and only a few copies are available. A publisher has no other method other than applying a sticker of the enhanced price on rare books and that this is a practice universally followed. It is argued that the State Commission grossly erred in holding that it is an unfair trade practice and further directing him to desist from practices of applying enhanced price stickers.
Findings :
7. The issue, therefore, before us is whether action of the Revision Petitioner in enhancing the price of certain rare books which are out of print amounts to an unfair trade practice. There is an exhaustive definition of the word 'unfair trade practice' under Section 2(1)(r). None of clauses of the definition, except perhaps Clause (r)(i)(ix) are even remotely relevant to the facts of this case. However, a close perusal would show that even this clause has no application to the facts of this case before us. This clause reads as follows :
"(ix) materially misleads the public concerning the price at which a product or like products or goods or services have been or are, ordinarily sold or provided..."
8. Here in this case we do not see how this clause is applicable. There is no question of misleading the public concerning the price at which products or like products, namely, books are to be sold. There is no restriction on the publisher to increase the price of the book. Both the parties knew the price being charged, there were no misrepresentation or misleading factors are involved and since it was an agreed and voluntary contract, there is no question of any unfair trade practice.
9. The petitioner had complied with the Order of the District Forum by refunding Rs. 46.50 and Rs. 500/- as cost of litigation as directed by the District Forum. The petitioner did not file any appeal against the District Forum's Order and otherwise he also fulfilled the direction given in the said Order. As such, we see no reason to interfere with the Order of the District Forum.
10. In view of the above discussion, the Revision Petition is allowed and the order of the State Commission is set aside.