Dated 08.02.2024

As per Sanjay Kumar, President.

O r d e r

1. Present appeal has been filed on behalf of appellants/opposite parties Railways for setting aside the judgment and order dated 15.10.2011 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Darbhanga in Complaint case no. 03 of 2011 whereby and whereunder appellants have been directed to pay Rs. 44,090/- with compound interest @12% per annum from the date of filing of complaint case and further directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- for loss of goodwill and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the case as disclosed in complaint petition is that complainant is supplier of law books and journals having head office at Allahabad and in course of his business complainant booked two bundles of books for value of Rs. 44,090/- from Allahabad to Laheriasarai railway station on 03.08.2010 but said two bundles of book did not reach its destination and complainant made several efforts to locate the missing bundle of books but same could not be traced out.
3. Complainant made several complaint in respect of missing of two bundles of books to the railway authority but no action was taken and complainant thereafter, send a pleader notice on 23.08.2010 but same remained un-replied by the opposite parties as such complainant filed consumer complaint case in the District Consumer Forum, Darbhanga for payment of Rs. 44,090/- the price of missing articles with interest and Rs. 25,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of goodwill and Rs. 10,000/- as cost of litigation upon which notices were issued to opposite parties for their appearance.
4. Opposite parties in their written statement stated that consumer forum had no jurisdiction to hear and decide present case as such disputes can be decided by Railway Claims Tribunal which has exclusive jurisdiction to decide such matters. Complainant does not come within definition of consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, booking made of consignment was for commercial purpose.
5. The District Consumer Forum after hearing the parties and considering the materials available on record held that it is an admitted fact that the complainant had booked two bundles of books and journals from Allahabad to Laheriasarai and the value of books and journals were Rs. 44,090/- and same were never delivered to the complainant and as such deficiency in service of railways is established and accordingly, allowed the complaint case by order dated 15.10.2011, aggrieved by which present appeal has been filed by railways.
6. It is submitted on behalf of appellant that complainant is not a consumer within the definition of Consumer Act. It is further submitted that section 103 of railway Act, stipulates the liability of railways in respect of consignment entrusted to railways for the purpose of carriage by railways. Under section 103 (2), if the value of consignment is declared at the time of booking and percentage  charge is paid to railways the liability of railway in case of non-delivery of the consignment shall not exceed the value so declared. Section 103 (1) stipulates that if value of the consignment is not declared and percentage charge is not paid to railways then liability would be with reference to the weight of consignment. In present case the consignment was booked on weight and not on its value as such complainant is not entitled for value of the parcels and is entitled for amount paid for weight of the parcels. The consignment was not booked by the complainant rather booked by the Premier Publishing Company as consigner of the parcel way bill.
7. Perused the order as impugned in this appeal as well as materials available on record.
8. Complainant himself in his complaint petition has stated that complainant is supplier of law books and journals in different state of the country having its main office at Allahabad as well as in other districts of the state as such complainant does not come within the definition of consumer as defined under section 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Person who hires any service for a consideration for commercial purpose does not come within the definition of consumer under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 as such complainant is not a consumer and District Consumer Forum had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint case.
9. In said view of the matter the judgment and order dated 15.10.2011 passed by the Ld. District Consumer Forum, Darbhanga in Complaint case no. 03 of 2011 is not sustainable either in law or on facts and is accordingly set aside.
10. Appeal is allowed and complaint case no. 03 of 2011 filed before the District Consumer Forum, Darbhanga is dismissed as not maintainable. However, dismissal of complaint case shall not preclude complainant from approaching the appropriate forum for redressal of his grievances.
11. A copy of this order be supplied to both the parties free of cost as mandated by the Consumer Protection Act. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the District Commission, Darbhanga by E-mail forthwith and order to be uploaded on the website of the Commission.
12.    Let the file be consigned in the record room along with copy of this order.

(Md. Shamim Akhtar)                                                                                                (Sanjay Kumar,J)

       Member                                                                                                                  President

Md. Fariduzzama