HINDUSTAN LAW BOOK COMPANY Vs. GANESH SRIVASTAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is to consider a revisional application arising out of an order dated 15.12.2004 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, West Bengal in S.C. Case No.51/A/2004 affirming the order dated 20.11.2003 passed by the Calcutta Unit No. 1 District Consumer Forum in C.D.F. Unit Case No.86 of 2003.

(2.) The facts of the case in brief are that the opposite party Sri Ganesh Srivastav filed an application under section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for an order directing the petitioner to resume supply of Calcutta High Court Notes Journal, for the year of 2002 forthwith for the rest of his life and also prayed for a compensation to the tune of Rs.50,000/-. The said application was filed before the Calcutta Unit No. 1 of the Consumer Forum. Sometime in the year 1981 a notice was published in the journal of Calcutta High Court Notes inviting life-membership for getting copies of the said journal for a lifetime on payment of a fee equivalent to 10 times of the then existing subscription to be paid at a time. Accordingly, the payment was made by the complainant and became a life-member of the said journal. In the year 1994 the Hindustan Law Book Company had acquired the ownership of the said journal and suddenly stop supply of the same to the opposite party from the month of January, 2002 and hence the complaint was made before the District Forum.

(3.) The petitioner appeared there by filing a written statement denying all material aliegations and it was taken there that the membership was provided only for 10 years and after the expiry of that 10 years the petitioner had no obligation to supply the said journal to the opposite party. It was also taken there that initially the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 600/- towards subscription of Calcutta High Court Notes (hereinafter referred to as "CHN" only) when the same was being published in two volumes and contained only decisions of this High Court but from the year 2001 the journal was being supplied in three volumes and thereafter the number of the volumes increased to 4 volumes recently. Thus, it was again stated there, the present petitioner would supply the opposite party only two volumes free of cost in terms of the life-membership and requested the opposite party to pay Rs.750/- towards subscription of two other volumes which was not accepted by the opposite party before the District Forum. It was also agitated there that the present petitioner had no privity of contract with the opposite party. It was also denied that the petitioner before the District Forum was a consumer under section 2(d)(i) & (ii). It was further contended there that the soaring costs of publishing the journal with the inclusion of Supreme Court's decisions it was almost impossible for the petitioner to supply the said journal all free of cost for the rest of the life of the opposite party. It is also mentioned in the application before me that the District Forum allowed the said petition directing the present petitioner to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,000/- and also to continue supply of the journal for the rest of the life of the complainant uninterruptedly. The petitioner had appealed against that order but the appeal was dismissed and hence the present revisional application.