AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is filed by the Opposite Party in OP No. 1/91 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kottayam.
THE Opposite Party is a well known Publication Company of Kerala and it has published a large number of standard books in the past including Viswavignana Kosam. THE Opposite Party announced the publication of a new Viswa-Vignana Kosam(Encyclopedia). Sri T.S. Vengugopal who is the member of the complainant organisation remitted Rs. 575/- for obtaining this Encyclopedia on instalment basis. Sri Venugopal took delivery of the first three volumes of the Encyclopedia and on going through the Chemistry portions, it was found there were several basic defects. Enquiries with prominent academicians of different disciplines also revealed that there were grave mistakes in the treatment of other subjects also. In the circumstances the complainant claims refund of the amount paid for the 3 volumes with interest. THEre was also prayer for a direction to appoint an expert committee to review the entire volumes so far published and to prepare a detailed consolidated corrigendum and print it at the cost of Opposite Party and supply to the consumers who purchased these volumes. In the version filed by the Opposite Party it was contended that the subject matter of the dispute is not one coming within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act. According to the Opposite Party publication of book cannot be considered as goods so as to attract the provisions of the Act. It was also stated that all possible efforts were made to make it an authoritative reference book under the guidance and advice of renowned experts in each field and the Opposite Party did not give any guarantee of infallibility. It is also contended that the mistakes pointed out are merely accidental and not serious.
The District Forum held that an Encyclopedia published is goods and there is no merit in the contention raised by the Opposite Party that the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not applicable. It also held that there are serious mistakes in the volumes published and, therefore, there is defect in the book and it is only reasonable to direct the Opposite Party to refund Rs. 575/- the instalments paid for the volumes purchased and to pay Rs. 100/- towards cost.
IN this appeal, the Opposite Party challenged this finding. We heard the Counsel for the appellant and also perused the argument notes submitted by the Counsel for the appellant. It is contended that the contents of a literature work could not be considered as goods as defined in the Sale of Goods Act. "Goods" has been defined in Section (2) 7 of the sale of Goods Act as meaning every kind of movable property other than actionable .claims and money and includes stock and shares growing crops, grass and things attached to or forming part of the land which are agreed to be severed before sale or under the contract of sale. We do not find any reason to hold that the volumes of Encyclopedia published are not goods.
IT is next contended that Encyclopedia published is not defective as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. Section (2)(f) of the Act defines defect as "any fault imperfection short-coming in the quality, quantity, potency, purity or standard which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods". Encyclopedia is a reference book of great value and people largely depend upon it for authoritative information on various subjects under the impression that the informations imparted therein are correct and faultless. If it is established that the informations supplied are wrong, then it has to be held that the publication is defective. The complainant has produced Annexure 111 along with the complaint wherein large number of mistakes have been pointed out. IT has not been stated in the version that these mistakes are not there. On the other hand what is contained is that the mistakes are not serious. We are unable to agree with the contention that the mistakes pointed out are not serious and are only accidental errors. In our view most of the mistakes enumerated in Annexure 111 are not printer''s devils or minor accidental mistakes, but mistakes which are basic and fundamental. It is finally contended that these mistakes have been rectified in the 12th volume published. So far so good. However that will not affect the right of the complainant to ask for the refund of amount paid by him. for defective volumes. We, therefore, confirm the order passed by the District Forum directing the Opposite Party to pay to the complainant an amount of Rs. 575/- and cost of Rs. 1,000/-. There is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. Appeal dismissed. ________________