SRI JIBAN KRUSHNA BEHERA, MEMBER (I/C)
The complainant has filed this complaint petition, U/s-35 of C.P.A.-2019, (here-in- after called as the “Act”) against the Ops alleging deficiency-in-service with a prayer for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the Ops.
2. The case of the complainant, in a nut-shell, is that on 21.9.2022 he sent a parcel of spare parts valued Rs.49,000/- and paid Rs.725/- towards charges addressed to Naiwala, Kunal Bagh, New Delhi from OP No.1. As stated by the complainant, the concerned parcel has not yet been delivered to the recipient. On being asked, OP No.1 replied that the parcel has sent to the recipient’s area office. He has not given any delivery report or the enquiry report about the parcel. But in fact, the concerned parcel has not yet been reached to its destination. Hence, this case.
3. In the present case, the Ops appeared and filed their written version denying the averments made in the complaint. They have challenged that the complainant is not a consumer and the case is not maintainable. The Ops have specifically stated that the complainant had engaged their services for delivery of the goods, but the purpose for transaction was commercial. Further, the complainant runs a business and had engaged their services to deliver the goods to Delhi. So, delivering goods to Delhi itself amounts a commercial purpose. That apart, the complainant had engaged the Ops for a commercial purpose and thus, relation between the parties is purely a business-to-business relationship and such transactions would clearly come within the ambit of commercial purpose. Therefore, the Ops have prayed to dismiss the complaint.
4. The points for determination in this case are as follows:-
(i) Whether the complainant is a consumer or not?
(ii) Whether the complainant has any cause of action to file this case?
(iii) Whether the case is maintainable?
(iv) Whether there is any deficiency of service on the part of the Ops?
(v) Whether the complainant is entitled to get the relief, as sought for?
(vi) To what other relief(s), the complainant is entitled to?
F I N D I N G S
5. In order to arrive at a definite conclusion, first of all, it is required to be decided as to whether the case is maintainable or not. In the present, the complainant has proved the goods consignment receipt vide Annexure-1. Apart from it, he has not produced any other document. In the complaint, the complainant has stated that he is a business man and deals in retail sale of two wheeler spare parts. It is further stated that on 21.9.2022, he had been to the office of OP No.1 and sent a parcel of spare parts of valued Rs.49,000/- to Naiwala Kunal Bagh, New Delhi. The present case is filed on 17.1.2023 i.e. after 3 months and 27 days of booking of the consignment.
Section 16 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 speaks that – “No suit or other legal proceeding shall be instituted against a common carrier for any loss of, or damage to, the consignment, unless notice in writing of the loss or damage to the consignment has been served on the common carrier before the institution of the suit or other legal proceeding and within one hundred and eighty days from the date of booking of the consignment by the consignor.”
Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 speaks that – “No suit shall be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of, or injury to, goods entrusted to him for carriage, unless notice in writing of the loss or injury has been given to him before institution of the suit and within six months of the time when the loss or injury first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff.”
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation V. B.L.Sharma in First Appeal No.107 of 2001 have been pleased to observe that – “Carriers Act is applicable to a complaint under the Consumer Protection Act. That being so, it was mandatory for the respondent to issue notice as required under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. This having not done, complaint was not maintainable. Claim of the respondent for value of the goods lost cannot be sustained.”
6. Admittedly, in the present case, the complainant has availed the services of the Ops for a commercial purpose. The complainant by engaging the services of the Ops sent spare parts to Delhi. Thus, it is held that the services were engaged in normal course of business for a profit generation activity and thus, he has a direct nexus to a profit generating activity. Further, the relationship between the complainant and the Ops for such transaction is purely a business-to-business and such transaction would clearly come within the ambit of commercial purpose.
7. Taking into consideration the mandate of law and in view of the ratio decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Commission is of the considered opinion that the complainant is not a consumer as defined U/s 2(7) of the Act, he has no cause of action to file the present case and the case is not maintainable. Consequently, the complainant is not entitled to any compensation, as prayed for.
Hence, it is ordered –
O R D E R
The case of the complainant be and the same is dismissed on contest against the Ops, but in the facts and circumstances, no order as to costs.
Pronounced in the open court of this Commission, this the 17th day of September, 2024 under my signature & seal of the Commission.
