Balbir Aggarwal son of Sh. Munshi Ram, r/o 1525/1, Street no.33, Preet Nagar, New Shimlapuri, Ludhiana.



….Complainant.

Versus



Bhakri Advertising Agency, inside Sher-e Punjab Complex, opposite Indl. Estate, near Dholewal Bridge, Ludhiana through Sh. Amar Nath Bhakri.



….Opposite party.




O R D E R



1- Smt. Shakuntla Devi deceased wife of the complainant, had taken loan of Rs.5 lacs for her shed from SBI, Ludhiana. She couldn’t regularize loan and the bank had consequently, alarmed her to auction her property. In order to save the same through forced auction by the bank at throw away price, sought permission of the bank, to sell property at her own level. Therefore, for issuance of advertisement, availed services of opposite party by way of publication in Punjab Kesri for 13.4.2008 and paid publication charges of Rs.200/- vide receipt no.14170 dated 8.4.2008.
She was assured for publication of the sale advertisement. But unfortunately, opposite party failed to get the same advertisement published in newspaper Punjab Kesri dated 13.4.2008 as promised. Hence, approached opposite party, but they failed to give any satisfactory reply for non publication of the advertisement. Thereafter, bank started initiating proceedings for sale of her property, with great difficulty, was able to get time extended by the bank upto 15.5.2008. Due to non publication of the advertisement, complainant had to suffer mental tension, harassment, pain and agony. For such deficiency of service on part of opposite party, has claimed compensation of Rs.2 lacs, by filing this complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer protection Act, 1986, also sought legal expenses of Rs.5500/-.



2- Opposite party in reply pleaded that this Fora has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint, there is no deficiency of service on their part. Averred that complainant failed to supply NOC, as demanded by them at the time of advertisement as well as vide letter dated 11.4.2008. In these circumstances, it is conceded that on 8.4.2008, complainant paid Rs.200/- for publication of the advertisement in Punjab Kesri. But NOC immediately was demanded from the complainant, which he failed to furnish. Hence, advertisement not published. So, there is no deficiency in service on their part. No loss due to act, was suffered by the complainant.


3- Parties led evidence in support of their claims and stood heard through their respective counsels.


4- Admitted aspects are that complainant booked advertisement, by paying Rs.200/- to opposite party vide receipt Ex.C2 dated 8.4.2008. Opposite party agreed to get advertisement published in Punjab Kesri dated 13.4.2008, but it was not done by them.


5- Reasons advanced by opposite party for non publication of the advertisement is that advertising manager of Punjab Keseri, vide letter Ex.R2 dated 10.4.2008 had intimated opposite party that advertisement of the complainant can not be published, unless NOC is received from SBI. Because the property was pledged with the SBI. Thereupon, opposite party vide letter dated 11.4.2008 Ex.R3 issued to the complainant, under postal certificate Ex.R4, sought NOC from the complainant. It was for such reason, claimed that advertisement was not published, as complainant failed to furnish NOC from the bank, with which, the property was mortgaged.


6- However, complainant has brought on record that same advertisement was got published by him in the same very newspaper Punjab Kesri dated 14th September, 2008, copy of which is Ex.C3. This advertisement was got published through Narendra Advertisers vide receipt Ex.C1 dated 10.9.2008.


7- It is in aforesaid backdrop, food for thought whether action of opposite in not publishing the advertisement, was justified, after having received publication charges from the complainant.


8- Since complainant engaged opposite party for publication of the advertisement on 8.4.2008, requested for publication on 13.4.2008, opposite party before that day, vide communication Ex.R3 dated 11.4.2008, intimated complainant to produce NOC from State Bank of India. He consequently, was conveyed that on account of non production of NOC from the bank, advertisement was cancelled by the newspaper group and he was intimated to receive back amount on production of receipt no.14170(Ex.R1).



9- Thus, opposite party who is agent of Punjab Kesri, has done his duty, by forwarding advertising for publication to the advertising department of the newspaper. But they found that the property regarding which, advertisement was sought to be published, was encumbered. Hence, consequently vide letter Ex.R2 dated 10th April, 2008, required complainant, to obtain NOC from the SBI, Ludhiana. It was in compliance that letter Ex.R3 was issued to the complainant. It was issued before the date of publication. Therefore, it appears that non publication of the advertisement, was not deliberate or intentional act on part of the opposite party. Rather, they wanted to watch their interest. Argued on behalf of opposite party that had advertisement been published, newspaper group would have been unnecessarily dragged in controversy of publishing advertisement qua property which was not free from encumbrance.
It was in these circumstances that for such reasons, opposite party required complainant to obtain NOC from the bank. We have no reason to disagree with such plea of the opposite party. So, we feel that opposite party was not negligent in not publishing the advertisement of the complainant. Therefore, finding no merits in the complaint, the same is dismissed. However, despite dismissal of the complaint, we may say that complainant would be entitled for refund of the amount of Rs.200/- of receipt Ex.R1 from the opposite party.