Complainant/Respondent No.1, on 11.11.2008, entrusted the consignment of electrical parts of Complainant/Respondent No.2 for its transportation through the appellant to the consignee.  Consignment consisted of various spares and parts required for automatic cement and steel plant to the value of Rs.29,17,300/-.   Those goods were accepted by the appellant for delivery by road to the consignee – M/s Essar Steel Ltd. at Palnar Road, Krandul (Chhatisgarh).   As per their invoice dated 11.11.2008, the mode of transport was categorized as economy express and charged accordingly for transportation.   Grievance of the Complainant/Respondent No.2 is that appellant failed to deliver the said consignment to M/s Essar Steel Ltd.   On 21.1.2009, the appellant issued certificate confirming the loss of consignment of the goods during the transit.  Since the consignment was insured with Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Ltd. – Respondent No.1 herein, Respondent No. 2 lodged the claim with Respondent No.1 under the agreement with insurance company and accordingly the insurance company settled the claim at Rs.29,17,300/-.  As per the agreement, under the letter of subrogation, the insurance company (Respondent No.1) along with Respondent No.2 filed the complaint before the State Commission.

State Commission partly allowed the complaint and directed the appellant to pay Rs.29,17,300/- to the insurance company along with interest @ 9% from the date of filing of the complaint i.e. from 11.8.2010 till realization.  Rs.25,000/- were awarded as costs.

Counsel appearing for the appellant contends that since the goods had been sent by the complainant respondent No.2 through the appellant for commercial purpose, the complaint filed by respondent No.2 and the insurance company was not maintainable in view of the law laid down by Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Economic Transport Organization vs. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. – (2010)2 SCR 887

“We may also notice that Section 2(d) of Act was amended by Amendment Act 62 of 2002 with effect from 15.3.2003, by adding the words “but 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.”

Parliament of India amended Section 2(d) of the Consumer Protection Act by Amendment Act 62 of 2002 which came into force with effect from 15.3.2003 by adding the words “it does not include the person who avails of services for commercial purpose” in the definition of the word ‘consumer’.  Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that after the said amendment, if the services of the carrier had been availed for a commercial purpose, then the person availing the services could not be termed as a ‘consumer’. 

We have gone through the complaint filed by the respondent.  It is evident from the reading of the first two paragraphs of the complaint that Respondent No.2 had sent the goods through the appellant for a commercial purpose.  Respectfully following the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Charan Spinning Mills case (supra), we accept this appeal, set aside the order of the State Commission and dismiss the complaint as not maintainable.

Appeal stands disposed of accordingly.

However, liberty is reserved with the appellant to seek redressal of its grievances from any other Forum along with an application under Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay for the time spent before the consumer fora, keeping in mind the observations made by the Supreme Court in Laxmi Engineering Works vs. PSG Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 SCC 583.

While issuing notice, we had directed the appellant to deposit the entire awarded amount with this Commission.  Registry is directed to release the deposited amount to the appellant along with accrued interest.  Registry is further directed to release the sum of Rs.35,000/- deposited by the appellant as statutory amount under Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act.