<br /> <br /> Date of Filing: 20.02.2008<br /> Date of Order: 07.07.2008<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> BEFORE THE I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20<br /> <br /> Dated: 7th DAY OF JULY 2008<br /> <br /> PRESENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Sri. Bajentri H.M, B.A, LL.B., President<br /> Smt. C.V. Rajamma, B.Sc., LL.B., PGDPR, Member<br /> Sri. M. Nagabhushana, B.Com, LL.B., Member<br /> <br /> <br /> COMPLAINT NO: 468 OF 2008<br /> Sri. R. Chandrababu,<br /> No.203/B, Type-II/RWF Rly. Qrts,<br /> Yelahanka,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 064. …COMPLAINANT<br /> <br /> - V/S -<br /> <br /> Sri. D. Nagaraj,<br /> In Charge Manager,<br /> Professional Couriers, No.5,<br /> Venkateshwara Complex,<br /> B.B. Road, Yelahanka,<br /> BANGALORE – 560 064. …OPPOSITE PARTY<br /> <br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> <br /> On 24.10.2007 the daughter of the complainant sent a sealed cover containing First Class Railway Pass through Savanur Branch of the opposite party for delivery at Bangalore to the address of the complainant. Though the cover reached the office of the opposite party at Yelahanka, Bangalore, the same was not delievered to the complainant. After the complainant approached the opposite party several times, a letter was given stating that the cover is missing. As a result the complainant lost the Railway Pass of the value of Rs.80,000/-. Hence, the complaint.<br /> <br /> <br /> 2. In the version the contention of the opposite party is as under:-<br /> The complainant had booked consignment through the branch of the opposite party at Savanur, but as could be seen from the Consignment Note no amount was charged to the complainant and as such the complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined under the Consumer Protection Act., The complainant did not disclose the contents of the consignment and the value of the same. Therefore, the contention that the consignment contained First Class Railway Pass of the value of Rs.80,000/- is denied. The consignment was accepted free of charges, but the said cover is lost/mixed up during transit and the same is not traceable. As provided in Section-3 of the Carriers Act., unless the value of the consignment is declared by the consignee at the time of booking, the labiality of the Carrier is limited to Rs.100/-. The consignment was accepted with a clear condition that in case of non-delivery or delay in delivery of the consignment the compensation payable is limited to Rs.100/-. Since there is no deficiency in service, the opposite party is not liable to pay Rs.80,000/- or any amount to the complainant. <br /> <br /> 3. In support of the respective contentions both the parties have filed affidavits. We have heard the arguments on both sides.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 4. The points for consideration are :-<br /> (a) Whether the complainant is a “Consumer” within<br /> the meaning of Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer <br /> Protection Act, ? <br /> <br /> (b) Whether the complainant has proved deficiency in<br /> service on the part of the opposite party ?<br /> <br /> <br /> (c) Whether the complainant entitled to the relief<br /> prayed for in the complaint ?<br /> <br /> 5. Our findings are:-<br /> Point No.1 :- In the negative,<br /> Point No.2 :- In the affirmative, <br /> Point No.3 :- In the negative.<br /> <br /> REASONS<br /> <br /> 6. POINT NO.1:-<br /> As defined in Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, a Consumer is one who avails the services of the other party for consideration or who purchases the goods for a price. It is contended by the opposite party that the consignment was received for delivery free of cost. This contention finds support from the copy of Consignment Note produced by the complainant. This Consignment Note does not disclose that for availing services of the opposite party, the complainant has paid any charges. In this Consignment Note, the column meant for mentioning the amount paid towards transportation charges is left blank and only a question mark is put at the plan. Therefore, it is evident that the consignee had not paid any amount towards transportation charges to the opposite party and as such the consignment was received for transportation free of cost. In that event the availment of service was without consideration and as such the complainant is not a “Consumer” as defined in Section-2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Point No.1 is answered accordingly.<br /> <br /> 7. POINTS NO. 2 & 3:- <br /> No doubt non-delivery of an article consigned amounts to deficiency in service. But, since the complainant has not paid any consideration for availment of services of the opposite party, he is not entitled to invoke the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum, as he is not a Consumer. For any relief the complainant has to approach Competent Civil Court. Therefore, we hold that the complainant is not entitled to any relief at the hands of this Forum. In the result, we pass the following :-<br /> <br /> ORDER<br /> 8. The complaint is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.<br /> <br /> 9. Send a copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately.<br /> <br /> 10. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 7TH DAY OF JULY - 2008.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT<br />