State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission

West Bengal

BHABANI BHAVAN (GROUND FLOOR)

31, BELVEDERE ROAD, ALIPORE

KOLKATA – 700 027





S.C. CASE NO. FA/09/116



DATE OF FILING: 17.3.2009

DATE OF FINAL ORDER: 28.05.2009


APPELLANT/OP NO.2


West Bengal Board of Secondary Education

77/2, Park Street, Kolkata – 700 016



RESPONDENT/PETITIONER



1) Sri Santanu Datta

Residing at 118A, Madan Mohan Burman Street

Kolkata – 700 007



OPPOSITE PARTIES/RESPONDENTS



2) Usha Publishing House

13/1, Bankim Chatterjee Street

Kolkata – 700 073

3) Ganashakti Printers Pvt. Ltd.

Having its office at 33, Alimuddin Street

Kolkata – 700 016



BEFORE : HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT

MEMBER : MR. A.K. RAY

MEMBER : MRS. S. MAJUMDER



FOR THE APPELLANT : Mr. Subhayu Banerjee, Advocate

FOR THE RESPONDENTS: In Person (No.1)

Mr. P.K. Giri, Advocate (No.2)

Mr. Subhas Ch. Bose, Advocate (No.3)





: O R D E R :


HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. A. CHAKRABARTI, PRESIDENT





This appeal was filed challenging order dated 10.9.2008 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kolkata Unit-II in CC No.405 of 2006 whereby the complaint was allowed directing OP2 to pay to the complainant a compensation of Rs.10,000/- for harassment.

The facts in brief as stated in the complaint are that the petitioner bought a book on Mathematics (English Version) for Class-VIII from OP1 Usha Publishing House which was detected to have manufacturing defects (perforations in the side of a large number of pages). When the said defect was brought to the notice the OP refused to replace, the petitioner was directed to approach the Madhyamik Board Office for redressal taking of the matter with the officials of the Book Publishing Sections. The officials tried to negotiate with the OP1 whereupon the book was taken for replacement but ultimately it was returned to the petitioner as the Madhyamik Board Office refused to replace it. The petitioner formally lodged a complaint to the Assistant Director, Kolkata North Consumer Affairs and Fair Business Practice whereupon inspection of the documents a hearing was fixed and at the time of hearing OP1 offered a fresh copy of the book to the petitioner but the same was refused as there was similar defects. Accordingly prayer was made before the Forum below for compensation of Rs.1 lac. Upon amendment of the complaint at a subsequent stage the Board of West Bengal Secondary Education and Ganashakti Printers Pvt. Ltd. were added as OPs.

Heard Mr. Subhayu Banerjee, the Ld. Advocate for the Appellant, Mr. Giri, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.2, Mr. Subhas Ch. Bose, the Ld. Advocate for the Respondent No.3 and the Respondent No.1 in person.

Considering the respective contentions and perusing the materials including the records of the Forum we find that the case of the complainant that he purchased the book from OP1 upon payment of its price and detection of defects of perforation on various pages, have not been denied by the OPs. The contention of the OP1 is that OP1 is merely an agent of OP2 and, therefore, unless fresh copy of the book is made available for replacement the book, OP1 was unable to replace the book even on detection of the damages on the book as inspite of request OP2 did not replace the book. On behalf of OP2 it is contented that though OP2 had issued standing instruction for replacement of the defective books but not complying with the same OP1 committed mistake and so the OP2 is not responsible. It is contended by OP2 that it has issued standing instruction for replacement of the defective books by OP1 and once in a year OP1 was made entitled to get such books replaced from the OP2 and by not replacing the book the OP1 failed in its duty. OP3 the printer and binder contended that OP3 is not responsible either for the damage of the book or for non-replacement of the same on detection of the damages. It is contention of OP3 that the OP2 gets the books printed on reel cut papers which are ordinarily used for newspaper and after cutting of pages for the books the side of the papers bear perforation which could not be considered as manufacturing defect.

We find on records that the OP2 had issued circular on 20.12.06 that the book sellers were requested to apply for change/replacement of defective books within 15.01.07. But in the present facts the complainant purchased the book his request for replacement made on 06.7.06 within seven days which did not produce any result. Therefore, the said circular issued at a subsequent period is not relevant for consideration in respect of the purchase of the book much earlier.

From the facts available we are of the opinion that the OP2 was to replace the damaged books and this fact has not been disputed even by OP2 putting any responsibility either on OP1 the seller or the OP3 the printer and binder. OP2 undertook the responsibility of replacement but as defence relied on its circular. The said circular being of a subsequent date is not relevant. Therefore, there being no other defence of OP2 we do not find any lapse on the part of the OP1 or of OP3. Forum below therefore rightly held OP2 responsible.

In above view of the matter we do not find any ground for interference with the findings of the Forum below and the judgment impugned is affirmed hereby. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed and there will be no order as to costs.







(S. Majumder) (A.K. Ray) (Justice A. Chakrabarti)

MEMBER(L) MEMBER PRESIDENT