ORDER
B.S. Yadav, Members
1. This is a revision petition filed by the Sahitya Pravarthaka Cooperative Society Ltd. against the order dated 29th September, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kerala (for short the State Commission) by which its appeal filed by the Revision Petitioner against the order of the District Forum was dismissed. The present Revision Petitioner was opposite party before the District Forum.
2. The facts as gathered from the records are that the opposite party is a well known publishing company of Kerala and has published several standard books in the past including Viswavignana Kosam. The opposite party announced the publication of new Viswavignana Kosam (Encyclopaedia) vide their bulletin.
3. The complaint was filed by the respondent herein, Consumer Protection Council through its President on behalf of Shri T.S. Venugopal, a member of the said Council. Shri Venugopal had remitted a sum of Rs. 575/- for obtaining this Encyclopaedia on instalment basis. He received the first three volumes of the said Encyclopaedia and on going through the Chemistry portion of the Encyclopaedia he found several basic mistakes. It may be mentioned that Shri Venugopal is a Lecturer in Chemistry, inquiries from prominent academicians of different disciplines revealed that there were other grave mistakes in the treatment of other subject also.
4. The complainant sent a notice to the opposite party for taking remedial measures but it was rejected contemptuouslty. Shri Venugopal also wrote to the Editor, Dr. N.V. Krishna Warrier and Prof. Sivadas who was incharge of the Chemistry discipline of the said Encyclopaedia. From the manner in which Dr. N.V. Krishna Warrier responded it appears that his reputation was misused by the opposite party to foster the future of such sub-standard publication. Shri Venugopal is fully convinced that the said Encyclopaedia is a substandard one and thus defective as defined in Section 2(f) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short the Act) and opposite party is also guilty of unfair trade practice. In the above circumstances the complainant claimed for refund of Rs. 575/- which he had paid for the three volumes with interest. It was also prayed that the opposite party be directed 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 the opposite party and supply it to the consumers who have so far purchased the volumes of the Encyclopaedia.
5. The opposite party i.e., the present petitioner, filed his counter in which it was contended that the complaint was unsustainable in law as the subject matter of the dispute is one which does not fall under the above 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 averred that all possible efforts were made for making 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 was also averred that the mistakes pointed out were mainly accidental and not serious. It may be mentioned there that the opposite party had contended before the District Forum as well as the State Commission that all the mistakes have since been rectified in the 12th volume of the publication.
6. The District Forum overruled the preliminary objections of the opposite party and held that the books published by the opposite party are goods and though literary works are not goods but when it is printed and made in the form of book it becomes goods and any error in the literary work in the form of book is to be considered as a defect in the book and thus the complaint filed by the complainant was sustainable under the Act. It was admitted before the District Forum by the opposite party that there were some mistakes and error in the published volumes of Encyclopaedia but contended that they did not give any guarantee regarding infallibility and that the Encyclopaedia is a collective work and the publisher cannot be found fault with factual errors in the contribution, guidance and advice of renowned experts. The District Forum remarked that Encyclopaedia being a book giving information on many subjects is also a reference book which is expected to be accurate on substantial facts and students who rely on the Encyclopaedia for accurate information will be confused if the Encyclopaedia contains mistakes and errors. The three volumes of the Encyclopaedia with errors as pointed out by the complainant will affect the career of the students who depend upon the Encyclopaedia. Hence, it was held that the claim of the complainant for refund of the amount paid for the three volumes was justified. Accordingly, the complaint was allowed and the opposite party-Revision Petitioner was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 575/- towards the refund of the three volumes to the complainant and Rs. 100/- towards costs.
7. Feeling aggrieved the opposite party filed an appeal before the State Commission which upheld the findings of the District Forum and consequently dismissed the appeal. It was further held that the contention of the opposite party that the mistakes have been rectified in the 12th volume published will not affect the right of the complainant to ask for the refund of the amount paid by him for the defective volumes. The appeal was dismissed with costs amounting to Rs. l,000/-. The opposite party has now filed this revision petition.
8. At the time of arguments none was present for the Revision Petitioner. Shri T.S. Venugopal, purchaser of the first three volumes of the Encyclopaedia was present. We have heard him and gone through the records. We are of opinion that in the present case the dispute does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Though the books published by the opposite party are goods there is no defect in the printing or binding of the books. The grievance of the complainant is that there are mistakes in the subject matter contained in the books. “Defect” in goods has been defined in Section 2(1)(f) as follows :
“defect” means any fault, imperfection or shortcoming 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 (under any contract, express or implied or) as is claimed by the trader in any manner whatsoever in relation to any goods.”
Admittedly there is no law by or under which it can be said that the alleged mistakes in any Encyclopaedia published by the opposite party will amount to a “defect. There is also no contract express or implied in that respect. The only argument advanced on behalf of the complainant is that the leaflet issued by the opposite party has claimed that the publication contains all authentic information. The respondent has filed a leaflet issued by the opposite party which is at page 45 of the paper-book. It is nowhere mentioned in that leaflet that the information contained in the publication is authentic. The leaflet only mentions that it is a product of strenuous effort of 2,000 learned scholars in each subject. Thus the opposite party has only published the Encyclopaedia on the basis of the information said to have been received from various scholars in each subject.
9. We also fail to understand how the publisher can be held liable if any mistake occurs in the subject matter of the Encyclopaedia.
10. For the foregoing reasons we are of opinion that the complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Accordingly we hold that the District Forum as well as the State Commission have fallen in error while exercising their jurisdiction.
11. We accept the present revision petition and set aside the orders of the District Forum as well as of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint. No costs.