National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Akash Pateria vs Director-M/S. Anil Esnterprises (Anil ... on 18 December, 2018
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION NEW DELHI REVISION PETITION NO. 2130 OF 2018 (Against the Order dated 24/04/2018 in Appeal No. 20/2018 of the State Commission Chhattisgarh) 1. AKASH PATERIA S/O. SHRI UMA SHANKAR PATERIA, FLAT NO. 402, BLOCK A, PHASE I, NEAR SHANKARACHARYA COLLEGE LOTUS ARCADE JUNWANI,BHIALI, DISTRICT-DURG CHHATTISGARH ...........Petitioner(s) Versus 1. DIRECTOR-M/S. ANIL ESNTERPRISES (ANIL BOOK DEPOT) & ANR. 199-A, MARKET SECTOR 6, BHILAI, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT-DURG CHHATTISGARH 2. DIRECTOR, OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS INDIA WORLD TRADE TOWER, 12TH FLOOR, C-1, SECTOR 16, MAIN D.N.D. ROAD, RAJNIGANDHA CHOWK, NOIDA, GAUTAM BUDH NAGAR UTTAR PRADESH-201301 ...........Respondent(s)
BEFORE: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN,PRESIDING MEMBER
For the Petitioner : In person For the Respondent : DIRECTOR-M/S. ANIL ESNTERPRISES (ANIL BOOK DEPOT) & ANR.
Dated : 18 Dec 2018 ORDER JUSTICE V.K. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER
The complainant purchased a booked namely 'Learn With Linux - 5" from respondent Anil Enterprises for a price of Rs.175/-. The said book was published by respondent Oxford University Press India. He found that that on the last page of the book, the barcode had been blackened and revised price sticker of Rs.175/- had been affixed though the original price of the book was Rs.97/- when it was published in the year 2011. The complainant had purchased the aforesaid book in the year 2017. Being aggrieved, he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint. In its reply, the publisher of the book impleaded that there was no prohibition on increasing the price of the book and such increase in the price of the book does not constitute an unfair trade practice. It was also stated in the reply that in fact the book was purchased by the complainant for Rs.140/-. It was also stated in the written version of the publisher that they had sent a new book to the complainant on 17.5.2017, which he had received on 22.5.2017.
2. The District Forum having allowed the consumer complaint, the publisher Oxford University Press India approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. The said appeal having been allowed by the State Commission, the complainant is before this Commission by way of this revision petition.
3. It was noted by the State Commission that the complainant had in fact purchased two sets of the book 'Learn With Linux - 5", which were Annexure C-1 and C-2 to the consumer complaint. Annexure C-2 had been printed in the year 2017 though it was first published in the year 2010. The price sticker of Rs.175/- had been affixed on this book. Annexure C-1 had been printed in the year 2014 and the price sticker of Rs.175/- had been affixed on it. It is thus evident that when the book was first published in the year 2010, it had MRP of less than Rs.175/- but when it was sold to the complainant in the year 2017, its price had been increased by the publisher to Rs.175/- without revising the 2010 edition of the book. There was absolutely no legal bar to the revision of the price of a book nor was the price of the book 'Learn With Linux - 5" controlled by any Law, Rule or Regulation. Therefore, nothing in law prevented the publisher from selling the said book at a revised MRP of Rs.175/- in the year 2017, without revising the book in any manner. In this regard, it has to be kept in mind that the cost of the paper and printing in the year 2017 cannot be the same as in the year 2010. The cost to the publisher would be much more if the same book is got printed in the year 2017 as compared to the cost on printing the same book in the year 2010. The books sold to the complainant were not printed in the year 2010, one of them having been printed in the year 2017 and the other having been printed in the year 2014. Therefore, the publisher must have incurred a higher cost in printing the said books as compared to the cost in the year 2010. In any case, what is material is that there was no legal bar to the revision of the price of an already published book even if no change in the contents of the book was made. Such an increase does not constitute an unfair trade practice as defined in Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, which has been reproduced in para 13 of the of the order of the State Commission. There was no mis-representation to the complainant since the revised price of the book was known to him at the time it was purchased. He had an option not to purchase the book if he did not want to pay the revised price. But, mere revision of the price, without changing the contents of the book does not constitute an unfair trade practice as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. This is not the case of the complainant that at the time the aforesaid book was sold to him with price sticker of Rs.175/- it was sold to other buyers with a sticker of lesser sale price. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be said to have been misled in any manner.
4. For the reasons stated hereinabove, I find no ground to interfere with the impugned order. The revision petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed.
......................J V.K. JAIN PRESIDING MEMBER