DINAMALAR Vs. GNANAPRAKASAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) there is no merit in this appeal. The only contention raised by the appellant is that there is no privity of contract between the appellant and the complainant and that the 5th opposite party is not an agent of the appellant. This contention was negatived by the lower Forum. On going through the records, we find that the findings of the lower Forum in that regard cannot be found fault with. It is not in dispute that the 4th opposite party is an agent of the newspaper published by the opposite party Nos.1 to 2. It is also not disputed that the 4th opposite party placed orders for 360 copies of Dinamalar Deepavali Malar of the year 1996 with the 3rd opposite party and paid Rs.16,500/- which was received by the opposite party Nos.1 and 2. The opposite party Nos.1 and 2 accordingly supplied 360 copies to the 4th opposite party. The 4th opposite party in turn, pursuant to the order placed by one J. Anandan (5th opposite party) who was owning a bunk shop and used to sell the newspaper viz. , Dinamalar, booked for 30 copies of the Deepavali Malar from the 4th opposite party and the 4th opposite party accordingly supplied to the 5th opposite party. The 5th opposite party, with whom the complainant had booked for one copy of Dinamalar Deepavali Malar, paid a sum of Rs.55/-. But, he was not supplied with a copy. Therefore, an analysis of the case would clearly show that the opposite party Nos.1 to 3 are liable in the sense that an agency has to be inferred therefrom in such circumstances. Newspapers and magazines are printed and published by publishers and sold through agents. The agents in turn sell it to sub-agent who supplies them to various shops and newspaper vendors from whom members of public purchase them. Thus, there is a link connecting the vendors to the publisher and in that sense, an agency springs up between the parties. Therefore, the contention of the appellants that the 5th opposite party is not their agent cannot be accepted at all. In the circumstances, there is a clear inference of agency. Therefore, in such circumstances, the master is liable for the mistake committed by the agents and the sub-agents and in that sense, the appellants are liable to compensate the complainant. Therefore, in such circumstances, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

(2.) Consequently, this appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs. The order of the lower Forum is confirmed. Appeal dismissed.