State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Mrs. Nishita Ashish Khadakban, vs The Chief Editor, Hindustan Times, on 25 September, 2009
BEFORE THE HON
BEFORE THE HONBLE STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, MAHARASHTRA, MUMBAI
FIRST APPEAL NO. 742 OF
2009 Date of filing: 05/05/2009
IN CONSUMER COMPLAINT
NO.149/2008 Date of order: 25/09/2009
DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM:
CENTRAL MUMBAI
Mrs. Nishita Ashish
Khadakban,
Prop of M/s. Ark
Electronic & Computers,
R/at Mathura Banglow,
Gandhi Chowk,
Hanuman Temple,
Badlapur 421 503.
.. Appellant/
(Org. Complainant)
V/s.
1.
2.
The Chief Editor,
Hindustan Times,
Media Circulation
Office, HT Media Ltd.,
Plot No.6, TTC MIDC
Industrial Area,
Dighe Thane Belapur
Road,
Navi Mumbai 400 708.
Dy. General Manager
Legal of Hindustan Times Media Ltd.,
Mhalaxmi Engg. Estate,
Near K.J.
Khilani High School,
Mahim (W), Mumbai 400
016.
..Respondents/
(Org. Opposite Parties)
Corum:
Shri P. N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member
Shri S.R. Khanzode, Honble Judicial Member Present:
Mr. Milind Thenge, Advocate for Appellant.
-: ORAL ORDER :-
Per Shri P.N. Kashalkar, Honble Presiding Judicial Member.
Heard Advocate Mr. Milind Thenge for the Appellant. There is no need to issue notice to the other parties. This appeal has been filed just to seek enhancement in the order passed by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Central Mumbai District. The Complainant had approached Hindustan Times. There was a scheme of Hindustan Times whereby they had offered supply of newspapers for two years, initially at the rate of Rs.350/- per year and as per scheme for two years this consistent rate was given to the customers. The appellant paid subscription for this scheme. Initially for one year they had supplied newspaper on the annual fees of Rs.350/-, but, next year, though it was for 2 years, the said scheme was not renewed. She was asked to pay something more. Therefore, she approached District Forum by filing consumer complaint. The matter was decided ex-parte, since none appeared after service of notice on both the Opponents. Having gone through the facts and documents and affidavit, the Forum was pleased to hold, that obviously there was deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties, because as per scheme for two years consistent rate was applicable and that is why Complainant/Appellant had applied and opted for that scheme. As per the scheme, only for one year she was given the concessional charges and next year Opposite Party closed this scheme. Thereafter, the said scheme was not renewed despite their initial assurance given by Opposite Party. Hence, Forum below was pleased to allow the complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to renew the scheme for supply of newspaper for one year more at the same rate and also awarded compensation of Rs.2,000/- for mental agony and cost of litigation. Not satisfied with the compensation awarded, the Appellant/Org. Complainant has filed this appeal.
After hearing Advocate Mr. Milind Thenge, we are finding that the appeal filed by the Appellant is devoid of any substance and the award passed by the District Forum is just and proper and we are not inclined to enhance the compensation. It has been argued before us by the Counsel for Appellant that the same Forum had awarded compensation of Rs.5,000/- and Rs.2,000/- as costs in another complaint. But, the bench was different and therefore, on the ground of parity this appeal cannot be allowed for enhancement of damages. We find no substance and appeal stands dismissed summarily.
(S.R. Khanzode) (P.N. Kashalkar) Judicial Member Presiding Judicial Member ep