This Complaint coming up before us for hearing on 13-12-11 in the presence of Sri N.V. Satyanarayana, advocate for complainant and of  Sri J. Narasimha Rao, advocate for opposite parties, upon perusing the material on record after hearing both sides and having stood over till this day for consideration this Forum made the following:-

O R D E R

Per Sri A. Hazarath Rao,  President:-

The complainant filed this complaint u/s 12 of Consumer Protection Act seeking delivery of the consignment booked on                     24-09-10 at the 1^st opposite party or Rs.43,200/- towards costs of the pesticides bundle along with interest @24% p.a., from 24-09-10, Rs.40,000/- towards mental agony and loss of business and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the complaint.

2.   In brief the averments of the complaint are hereunder:

        The complainant has been dealing commission business in seeds and pesticides under the name and style of M/s Gupta Brokers, Guntur since 24 years.   The complainant used to send pesticide bags and containers through the 1^st opposite party to several places.   On               24-09-10 the complainant purchased pesticides worth of Rs.43,200/- from M/s Rajamatha Traders, Guntur for his customer R.Ganesh of Parakala, Warangal District.  The said Ganesh informed the complainant about non receipt of the consignment bearing                     No.GC 05898815 dated 24-09-10.  On 29-09-10 itself the complainant informed the 2^nd opposite party about missing of the said consignment.   Even after lapse of more than three months the Opposite parties neither gave reply nor traced the consignment.  Non delivery of the consignment at destination station by the Opposite parties amounted to deficiency of service.   Due to the above attitude of Opposite parties the complainant suffered a lot mentally and financially.   The complaint therefore be allowed.

3.   The contention of the Opposite parties in nutshell is hereunder:

        The complainant booked one carton box through the 1^st opposite party under GC No.05898815, dated 24-09-10 for delivery at Parakala.   During transit the said consignment was lost due to the circumstances beyond control of the opposite party.  Non deliver of the said consignment is neither willful nor wanton.   The complainant has not disclosed the value of consignment in respect of above GC note.   This Forum has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint.   The complainant is not a consumer as he is doing business on commission.   The complaint therefore be dismissed.

4.   Exs.A-1 to A-3 on behalf of complainant were marked.   No documents were marked on behalf of Ops.

5.   Now the points that arose for consideration in this complaint are:

1. Whether the complainant is a consumer under the purview of Consumer Protection Act?
2.  Whether the Opposite parties committed deficiency of service?
3. Whether the complainants are entitled to any compensation?    
4. To what relief?

6.   Admitted facts in this complaint are these:

1.The complainant booked a consignment bearing                            No. GC 05898815 on 24-09-10 for delivery at Parakala.

        2.The said consignment was lost during transit.

        3.The complainant is doing business in seeds and pesticides on                   commission under the name and style of Gupta brokers.

7.   POINT No.1:-   The complainant in his complaint as well as in affidavit categorically mentioned that he has been dealing commission business in seeds and pesticides under the name and style of Gupta Brokers, Guntur since 24 years.   The complainant hired the services of the Opposite parties for transporting the goods.

8.   In Economic Transport Organisation vs. Charan Spinning Mills Limited 2010 (3) ALD 58 (SC) the Supreme Court observed

      “We may also notice that Section 2(d) of Act was amended by Amendment Act 62 of 2002 with effect from 15-03-03, by adding the words “but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose” in the definition of ‘consumer’.  After the said amendment, if the service of the carrier had been availed for any commercial purpose, then the person availing the service will not be a ‘consumer’ and consequently, complaints will not be maintainable in such cases.   But the said amendment will not apply to complaints filed before the amendment”. 

        Taking a clue from the above decision we are of the opinion that the complainant is not a consumer under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  In view of afore mentioned discussion, we answer this point against the complainant.

9.   POINTS 2&3:-  In view of above findings, these points also answered against the complainant.

10.  POINT No.4:-   In view of above findings in the result the complaint is dismissed without costs.

Typed to my dictation by Junior Stenographer, corrected by us and pronounced in the open Forum dated this the 16^th day of              December, 2011.

MEMBER                                  MEMBER                             PRESIDENT

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

DOCUMENTS MARKED

For Complainant:

For opposite parties :   NIL

     PRESIDENT