JOHN GEORGE PROPRIETOR CRYSTAL Vs. GET IT INFORME DIARY LTD
LAWS(TNCDRC)-2008-4-23
TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
Decided on April 03,2008

Appellant
VERSUS
Respondents

JUDGEMENT

K.SAMPATH, J. - (1.) The complainant in COP No.85/2003 on the file of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai (South) is the appellant herein. The facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: - The complainant, carrying on business under the name and style M/s.Crystal in sales and service of computer and accessories, entered into a contract with the opposite party on 23/10/2001 for an advertisement in the Yellow Pages for the year 2002 providing that the advertisement would appear in B2C [Business to Consumer] book. Instead of the advertisement appearing in B2C book it appeared in B2B [Business to Business]. Thus the complainant had been deprived of the advertisement reaching 7 lakh customers as represented by the opposite party. According to the opposite party based on a market feed back it was found that all the persons who were coming under the category of Computer Accessories and Supplies wanted to be in B2B and not in B2C; that they sent a letter to the complainant on 18/2/2002 informing him that the advertisement had been placed in B2B directory that the complainant also had signed in the advertisement proof to acknowledge that the advertisement would appear only in B2B directory. Alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party in having misled the complainant and inserted the advertisement in B2B instead of B2B the complaint came to be filed claiming compensation in a sum of Rs.5 lakhs.
(2.) As already noted the Opposite party took the defence that the complainant had been duly informed by letter dated 18/2/2002 that the advertisement had been placed in B2B directory ; that he had also approved the final advertisement proof to acknowledge that the advertisement would appear only in B2B. It was their further case that paragraph 4 of the terms of the contract provided that Getit Yellow Pages will take utmost care in avoiding error and omission in print that however, Getit Yellow Pages will not be responsible for any error or omission in print.; again as per Clause 11,any complaint regarding the Subscribers Yellow Pages Advertisement, the Subscriber should intimate in writing to the Customer Service Cell at the Getit Yellow Pages within 30 days of the release of the Directory; no claim shall be entertained after 30 days of the release of the Directory; the Directory was released on 20/4/2002; the complainant caused a notice to be issued dated 8/7/2002 after a delay of 75 days; since he had accepted the terms of the contract that no claim could be made after 30 days, he was bound by the same and therefore the complaint was liable to be dismissed.
(3.) The District Forum accepted the case of the opposite party and by order dated 31/5/2005 dismissed the complaint. It is as against that the present appeal has been filed.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.