Magazine held liable for delayed delivery, made to pay Rs 1.5 lakh

The National Commission observed the term "guarantee of satisfaction" would not be limited to the magazine's contents, but would also include other aspects like timely delivery

In its advertisement, Reader’s Digest, a monthly magazine, had given a “guarantee of satisfaction”. However, Bharat Kapur, a senior citizen residing in Ludhiana, who had subscribed to Reader’s Digest, felt dissatisfied because there were times when he did not get delivery of the magazine, or received it after a considerable delay, much after it became available in the market.

When Kapur complained about non-receipt of the magazine, the publisher sent him copies for the relevant months, but after much delay. Even the issues that he did receive were usually not delivered on time.

Kapur was unhappy and aggrieved by the repeated delays. So, he filed a complaint before the Ludhiana District Forum against Reader’s Digest as well as the postal department. Reader’s Digest defended itself by contending there was no guarantee on timely delivery of the magazines sent through ordinary Class 2 post. Kapur pointed out that this was contrary to the claim made in Reader’s Digest’s advertisement, which also did not contain any such disclaimer regarding delay in delivery.

Kapur alleged there was a breach of the “guarantee of satisfaction” as customers were overcharged for delivery, but Reader’s Digest paid only a nominal amount for availing the postal department’s service. He alleged this was an unfair trade practice.

The Forum allowed the complaint and ordered Reader’s Digest to pay Rs 4,000 towards compensation and litigation costs. Bharat appealed to the Punjab State Commission, which enhanced the compensation to Rs 15,000. Bharat then approached the National Commission in revision, claiming the compensation was not adequate.

The National Commission observed that the complaint had a tone of public interest where a consumer was fighting for the rights of subscribers to get timely delivery of the magazine. The Commission observed that the term “guarantee of satisfaction” would not be limited merely to the contents of the magazine, but would also include other aspects such as timely delivery. The postal chart showed that out of 14 issues, only three issues were posted in time by the 5th of the month, the Commission noted. It concurred with the findings of deficiency service.

A technical object was raised that the complaint was filed against Reader’s Digest, which is merely a brand name and a trade mark, and that the publisher, Living Media India, had not been impleaded as a party. The Commission overruled this objection observing that even though the subscription cheque was credited to the account of Living Media, the advertisement clearly stated that payment was to be made in favour of Reader’s Digest. So, it concluded that the complaint filed against Reader’s Digest was maintainable.

The Commission observed that Kapur was a senior citizen who had complained about delay in delivery of the magazine, but Reader’s Digest did not make any effort to redress his grievance, and had not even bothered to take up the matter with the postal authorities. By its order of November 21, 2022 delivered by Subhash Chandra for the bench along with C Viswanath, the National Commission enhanced the compensation to Rs 1 lakh and additionally awarded Rs 50,000 as litigation costs. It also directed Reader’s Digest to work out a system with the postal department for ensuring delivery in a time bound manner.

---

The writer is a consumer activist