Petitioner's case is as follows: Petitioner for earning his livelihood as a means of self employment is conducting a printing and publishing firm. Petitioner on 5..11..2007 sent copies of the magazine “Pachakuthira” to different agents and book stall through the opposite party M/s. Professional Courier. According to the petitioner the opposite party had not served the magazines as agreed even on 9..11..2007. Petitioner states that act of the opposite party in not serving the magazine, in time, to the destination is a clear deficiency of service. So, petitioner claims an amount of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for the unfair trade practice committed by the opposite party. Petitioner also claims Rs. 5,000/- as compensation for mental agony and cost of the proceedings.
-2- Opposite party entered appearance and filed version contenting that petition is not maintainable. Opposite party contented that the petitioner is having several business establishment like running of business management school, modernised press etc. Yearly turn over of the petitioner's publishing industry is touching morethan one crore. Large number of Employees are working in the industry at various establishment so, petition is not maintainable before the Fora. According to the opposite party articles were included as the consignment on 6..11..2007. Some consignment were delivered on 8..11..2007 and on 9..11..2007. So there was no deficiency in service or unfair trade practice in consignment of the articles so, they pray for dismissal of the petition with their cost. Points for determinations are: i) Whether the petition is maintainable or not? ii) Whether there is any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the opposite party? Iii) Reliefs and costs? Evidence in this case consists of affidavit filed by both parties and Ext. A1 and A2 documents on the side of the petitioner and Ext. B1 and B2 documents on the side of the opposite party. Point No. 1 Opposite party produced copy of the detailse published in the Website of DC Books, said document is marked as Ext. B1. In Ext. B1 it is stated that the petitioner is doing the business of publishing and is running school and other activities. As per
-3- section 2 (d) (2) if the service is availed for any commercial purpose the person cannot be called as a consumer “But Commercial purpose” does not include hires by a person and used by him and service availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment. Here from Ext. B1 it can be seen that the petitioner's publishing company is an industrial concerned having various activities. So, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not a consumer and petition is not maintainable before the Fora . Point No. 1 is found accordingly. Point No. 2 & 3 In view of finding point No.1. Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. Considering the facts and circumstances no cost and compensation is ordered. Dictated by me transcribed by the Confidential Assistant corrected by me and pronounced in the Open Forum on this the 30th day of December, 2008.
......................Bindhu M Thomas
......................K.N Radhakrishnan
......................Santhosh Kesava Nath P | | 
