—ORDER— —This is an appeal against the order of 19.2.1990 of the State Commission of Rajasthan, Jaipur. 2. Respondent No. 1 had published a news item in the Rajasthan Patrika which the Appellant has assailed as wrong news : the news was that though the Appellant Mr. Gehlot was a Member of the Bar he was no longer practising and was running a Travel Co., and also a Photo Copier service. The Appellant has alleged that as a result of the false news he suffered "loss of his profession, mental tension, physical in-comforts and socially ill image". He has therefore charged the Respondent with negligence and claimed a compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs for the damage on injury caused to him. 3. In his appeal as well as during the course of oral arguments before this Commission; the Counsel for the appellant has also attacked the impartiality of the State Commission : according to the appellant there was unjustified delay on the part of the State Commission in making the Order on his petition : the Order was said to have been pronounced on the 20th of December, 1989 but was actually delivered much later, that the State Commission was not competent under the Consumer Protection Act to pronounce only the operative part of its Order on 20.12.1989 and record the reasons in support of that Order 61 days later, on 19th of February, 1990, that the point of limitation about the maintainability of the complaint was raised by the Commission suo moto. the parties had not raised it with the result that there was no discussion on the question of limitation and the appellant therefore had no opportunity to plead before the Commission that his complaint was within time. Nonetheless, the State Commission has rejected the complaint of the appellant, inter alia, on the ground that it was barred by limitation treating the news item as libellous or defamatory. 4. During the course of arguments before this Commission the Counsel for the Appellant repeatedly stressed that it was not his case that the impugned news item was defamatory and libellous. His case was that the news item was false, the false news item was put out negligently and thereby had caused loss or damage to his clientele for which he had to be compensated. 5. His case was that the news item was false, the false news item was put out negligently and thereby had caused loss or damage to his clientele for which he had to be compensated. 5. In the Appeal the appellant has claimed to be a consumer of the newspaper Rajasthan Patrika as defined in Section 2(l)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act. He, however, claimed compensation under section 14 (d) both in respect of Section 2 (f) (defective goods) and Section 2 (g) (defective service). 6. In this Case the appellant can claim compensation either for supply of defective goods or deficient service but not for both. Since he claims to be a consumer only under Section 2 (l)(d)(i), his claim with reference to Section 2 (g) deficient service) is erroneous and misleading. 7. The question, therefore, to be considered is whether supply of a newspaper containing allegedly wrong news in respect of one of the buyers of that newspaper constituted supply of defective goods to the buyer. 8. The defects in a newspaper to constitute it as a defective goods must pertain to the quality of its paper and printing. It cannot relate to the contents of the newspaper its news and views and the manner of their display which are the exclusive preserve of the editor. On the other hand, the news and views constitute the service which a newspaper renders to its readers (see Section 2(1) (o) of the Act) : the news and views contained in the newspaper cannot be described as goods. Consequently the alleged false news item about the appellant in the Rajasthan Patrika does not make the newspaper as defective goods. 9. The content of the newspaper and the truthfulness of the news and views raise a most fundamental question concerning the freedom of the press : who is to determine the content and whether a particular news item is true or false? These questions have been raised inasmuch as it is the Editors responsibility to ensure that the newspapers carry no objectionable matter including defamatory statements. Obviously it is for the Editor to decide in his wisdom which news he would like to project and how. These questions have been raised inasmuch as it is the Editors responsibility to ensure that the newspapers carry no objectionable matter including defamatory statements. Obviously it is for the Editor to decide in his wisdom which news he would like to project and how. If he indulges in false reporting, defamatory or libellous statements, which may result in character assassination or adversely affect a persons reputation, it would not lead to a deficiency in service rendered by a newspaper to its readers as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act. The freedom of news and views is the very essence of a free press in a democratic society. In fact, freedom to report what the Editor considers appropriate makes for the quality of service and not deficiency therein. It is a consequence of newspaper mans professional hazards that he may, in the process of reporting or commenting, fall foul of other laws like law of defamation or libel, Press Objectionable Matter Act, etc. 10. Further there is no hiring of any service by the purchaser of a newspaper. Hence in respect of "service" rendered by a newspaper, the purchaser or reader of a newspaper is not a hirer. 11. As already observed, in the course of his arguments before this Commission, the Counsel for the appellant emphatically maintained that it was not his case that the impugned news item was defamatory. His case was that the negligence on the part of the Editor in publishing a wrong news resulted in loss of professional work, mental tension, physical discomforts and tarnishing his social image. This is alleged to have caused him loss mentally, socially and financially. 12. If there is no defamation or libel, loss or damage said to have been suffered by his clientele could not have been caused by non-defamatory or non-libellous statement. Therefore no cause of action would arise against the newspaper. 13. To a question from this Commission, the Counsel for appellant could not state as to how the claim for damage amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs had been quantified and proved. In fact he admitted that the quantum of damages had not been adequately justified and proved. It is also significant that the appellant is not an income tax assessee. 14. To a question from this Commission, the Counsel for appellant could not state as to how the claim for damage amounting to Rs. 2 lakhs had been quantified and proved. In fact he admitted that the quantum of damages had not been adequately justified and proved. It is also significant that the appellant is not an income tax assessee. 14. Considering the entire record and the arguments of the Counsel for the appellant during the hearing and the law on the subject, this Commission is satisfied that (i) the Appellant was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act in relation to this particular newspaper, (ii) the impugned news item did not constitute a defect in the goods supplied viz., the particular news paper; (iii) there was no deficiency in service as defined in the Act nor did the consumer (purchaser of the newspaper) hire the services rendered by a news paper (news and views) ; (iv) the appellant also failed to establish how the impugned news item had caused loss or damage to him nor could he quantify the same as Rs. 2 lakhs. 15. The Commission cannot help remarking that the appellant has invoked frivolously the Consumer Protection Act on a trivial matter. He has also unfairly and improperly cast aspersions on the impartiality of the State Commission. In fact this Commission had examined the entire case de novo and not limited to the points raised in the appeal and have found that the appellant has no case. The Commission is, therefore, constrained to observe that the appellant has abused the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act and vexatiously persisted in carrying it up in appeal. 16. The Commission dismisses the appeal, upholds the Order of the State Commission and directs that the Appellant should pay Rs. 1,000/- by way of costs to the Respondent. Order pronounced on 12-7-1990.