BHARAT KAPUR Vs. EDITOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under sec. 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the 'Act') assails order dtd. 18/7/2016 of the State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh (in short, 'State Commission') against the order in First Appeal No. 827 of 2015 filed against order of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana (in short, 'District Forum') dtd. 10/6/2015 in complaint no. 876 of 2014.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner subscribed to the monthly magazine named 'Readers Digest' published by the respondent no. 1 in May 2014 and was assured of 'Guarantee of Satisfaction' as per the advertisement. However, the delivery of the magazine was consistently delayed and was done much after the magazine was available in the market, usually by the third week of the month. A few issues of the magazine were admittedly not delivered and the publishers supplied free copies on this being pointed out. The petitioner has alleged unethical practice by the respondent no. 1 at the cost of customers and public exchequer, i.e. the Department of Posts since customers who opt for annual subscription by making the payment in advance suffer transit delay. According to the petitioner, the magazine was contracted to be dispatched by ordinary post (Class 2) with no guarantee of time for delivery. The advertisement for annual subscription however does not have any disclaimer for late delivery by post. Rather, the advertisement promises 'Guarantee of Satisfaction". According to the petitioner, the customers were overcharged and the government was underpaid which amounts to unfair trade practice. The petitioner made several efforts with the postal authorities and respondent no. 2 in order to ascertain various details pertaining to the dispatch and delivery of the magazine over an extended period of time. The matter has travelled from the District Forum and the State Commission in appeal to this Commission by way of the present revision petition.

(3.) The District Forum held the respondent no. 1 to be deficient in service and ordered as under: