Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(Rupees Ten Thousand) towards cost of litigation to the complainant.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the complaint of the complainant are that the complainant is natural guardian of his son, who is studying in Class 5th. The O.P. No.1 is a book seller and O.P. No.2 is publisher of the book. The complainant purchased two set of books from the O.P. No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.4094/- (Rs.2047 x 2). The complainant purchased book "Learn With Linux - 5" in two sets from the O.P. No.1, which was published by the O.P. No.2. In the last page of main page of the book, the bar code was blackened and the price of Rs.175/- was mentioned separately. When the complainant erased the blackest spot, then he found that the M.R.P. of the book is Rs.97/- and it was published in the year 2011 and the O.P. No.2 sold old published book mentioning publication year 2017 and fixing the price Rs.175/-. The complainant contacted the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 told the complainant that he purchased the book from the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.2 fixed the // 3 // price of the book and the O.P.No.1 only sold the book on the price fixed by the O.P. No.2. Then the complainant contacted the O.P. No.2 on 03.04.2017 and gave intimation regarding the additional price and also sent email to O.P. No.2 on different dates, but the O.P. No.2 did not give any response, which comes in the category of unfair trade practice. The complainant and his son suffered mental agony. The complainant filed the instant complaint before the District Forum and prayed for granting reliefs, as mentioned in the relief clause of the complaint.

3. The O.P. No.1 filed its written statement and averred that it is only book seller. The price of the books is fixed by the publisher. The O.P. No.1 sold the book titled as Learn with Linux. The price was fixed by the O.P. No.2. The M.R.P. was printed as 175 in sticker and 20% rebate was given to the complainant. The book was sold at Rs.140/-. If the sale price of the book Rs.97/- is mentioned in the book and price was enhanced by the publisher, then for the same, the publisher is liable and the O.P. No.1 is not liable. Therefore, the complainant is not entitled to get any compensation from the O.P. No.1 and the complaint is liable to be dismissed against the O.P. No.1.

6. The O.P. No.1 has filed documents. Annexure NA-1 is reply sent by the O.P. No.1 to the complainant, Annexure NA-2 is acknowledgement, Annexure 3 are tax invoice.

7. The O.P. No.2 has filed documents. Annexure NA-1 is Authority Letter dated 9th August, 2017, Annexure 2 are tax invoice, Annexure NA-3 is receipt issued by Shree Maruti Courier Service Pvt. Ltd., Annexure NA-4 is letter dated 13th June, 2017 sent by Oxford University Press to the complainant.

8. Shri Ankit Renal and Shri Sidharth Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant (O.P. No.2), have argued that on 27.05.2017, the complainant had // 5 // purchased a textbook titled "Learned With Linux-5" from the respondent No.2 (O.P. No.1), which was published by the appellant (O.P. No.2). The first page of the book contained a clear and categorical declaration that the book was published in the year 2011 and the last page of the text book contained a declaration about the price of the book, in which the MRP of the book is mentioned as Rs.175/-. The publisher has every right to fix the price of the book. The O.P. No.2 has specifically fixed the price of book as Rs.175/- for the year 2017. The book was published in the year 2011, but it was sold in the year 2017, therefore, the price was rightly fixed by the O.P. No.2 as the O.P. No.2 has every right to revise the prices of the earlier impressions/editions of its publications as per its discretion. In Pustak Mahal Vs. Rattan Lal Premi, III (2004) CPJ 52 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has held that the publisher has a right to fix the price. In Mahipal Singh Vs. UNBVNL, I (2012) CPJ 241 (NC), Hon'ble National Commission has held that fixation of price does not come within purview of unfair trade practice under Section 2(1)(r) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainant is utterly failed to prove that the O.P. No.2 committed unfair trade practice, therefore, the impugned order passed by the District Forum, is erroneous and is liable to be set aside. They placed reliance on Appeal N.F.A./23/2014 - The State of Tripura Through Sri Partha Pratim Bhattacharjee Vs The Principal Officer, Oxford University Press, decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tripura vide order dated 13.02.2015, Pustak Mahal Vs. Rattan Lal Premi, III (2004) CPJ 52 (NC); First Appeal No.1021 of 2007 Bal Krishan Sharma Vs. Kamla David Singh, decided by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Haryana, Panchkula vide order dated 09.02.2012, Mahipal Singh Vs. UNBVNL, I (2012) CPJ 241 (NC); and Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Sh. Masood Ahmed Khan and Ors., IV (2010) CPJ 61 (SC).

// 6 //

9. The respondent No.1 (complainant) who is present in person has argued that the complainant is natural guardian of his son, who is studying in Class 5th. The O.P. No.1 is a book seller and O.P. No.2 is publisher of the book. The complainant purchased two sets of books from the O.P. No.1 and paid a sum of Rs.4094/- (Rs.2047 x 2). The complainant purchased book "Learn With Linux - 5" in two sets from the O.P. No.1, which was published by the O.P. No.2. In the last page of main page of the book, the bar code was blackened and the price of Rs.175/- was mentioned separately. When the complainant erased the blackest spot, then he found that the price of the book is Rs.97/- and it was published in the year 2011 and the O.P. No.2 sold the old published book mentioning publication year 2017 and fixing the price Rs.175/-. The complainant contacted the O.P. No.1 and the O.P. No.1 told the complainant that he purchased the book from the O.P. No.2 and O.P. No.2 fixed the price of the book and the O.P.No.1 only sold the book on the price mentioned by the O.P. No.2. Then the complainant contacted the O.P. No.2 on 03.04.2017 and gave intimation regarding the additional price and also sent email to O.P. No.2 on different dates, but the O.P. No.2 did not give any response, which comes in the category of unfair trade practice. The complainant and his son suffered mental agony. The impugned order passed by the District Forum is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Commission. The appeal filed by the appellant (O.P. No.2) is liable to be dismissed.