DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, SAHIBZADA AJIT SINGH NAGAR (MOHALI)
Consumer Complaint No.653 of 2015
Date of institution: 11.11.2014
26.07.2016
Date of decision : 11.08.2016
Gurdip Singh son of Puran Singh, resident of House No.1672, Phase-5, SAS Nagar, Mohali.
……..Complainant
Versus
1. DTDC Courier, SCO 11, Phase 3-A, SAS Nagar, Mohali through Manager Mr. Rajiv.
2. DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, DTDC House, 3 Victoria Road, Bangalore (Head Office DTDC) 560047.
………. Opposite Parties
Complaint under Sections 12 to 14
of the Consumer Protection Act
Quorum
Sh. Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President Sh. Amrinder Singh Sidhu, Member Mrs. R.K. Aulakh, Member.
Present: Complainant in person.
Shri Harpal Singh Taragarh, counsel for the OPs.
ORDER
By Ajit Pal Singh Rajput, President
This complaint was earlier decided by this Forum vide order dated 29.01.2015 in favour of the complainant. However, feeling aggrieved with the order of this Forum, the Opposite Parties preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab, Chandigarh. The Hon’ble State Commission vide order dated 27.04.2016 accepted the appeal and ordered as under:
“As a result of our above discussion, we accept the appeal of the appellants and by setting aside, the order dated 29.01.2015 of District Forum, Mohali, the case is remanded to the District Forum, Mohali to record the findings on the basis of existing evidence on record, as to whether complainant is proved to be ‘consumer’ of OPs or not. The District Forum should return definite finding, as to whether the booked consignment was for personal use or for commercial purposes.”
Complainant, Gurdip Singh son of Puran Singh, resident of House No.1672, Phase-5, SAS Nagar, Mohali, has filed this complaint against the Opposite Parties (hereinafter referred to as the OPs) under Sections 12 to 14 of the Consumer Protection Act. The brief facts of the complaint are as under:
The complainant had sent international courier through Opposite Party (for short ‘the OP’) No.1 on 15.10.2014 vide consignment slip Ex.C-1. He opened a new parlour under the name of Royal & Rich Beauty Services at Singapore which was to be inaugurated on 23rd October, 2014. The invitation to guests, brochures and invitation cards were printed in India. At the time of booking, the complainant had clearly explained the urgency and concern about the timely delivery of the courier who told that if the complainant pays Rs.270/- per kg. the courier would be delivered within three working days. The complainant got quotations from other cargo services which were as low as Rs.50/- per Kg. The complainant sent three boxes weighing 93.400 kg. consisting of advertisement material and invitation cards through the OPs on 15.10.2014 which was to be delivered within 3 working days by 18.10.2014. The value of the goods sent was Rs.25,000/- and the complainant paid Rs.25,380/- to the OPs. Only two packs were delivered late in the evening on 23.10.2014 after the inauguration function was over. The remaining pack was delivered one day later. Due to late delivery of boxes the complainant had suffered loss of Rs.8,66,380/-.
With these allegations, the complainant has sought directions to the OPs to return him the courier charges of Rs.25,380/-, Rs.25,000/- as the cost of the goods and Rs.8,16,000/- on account of mental agony and financial loss and Rs.1,000/- as costs of litigation.
2. OP No.1 and 2 in the written statement have pleaded in the preliminary objections that the complainant is not their consumer as defined in the Consumer Protection Act as the consignment was booked for commercial purpose. At the time of booking of consignment all terms and conditions were read over to the complainant orally and no undertaking was given regarding delivery within three days. The consignment was not insured. Thus, denying deficiency in service on their part, the OPs have sought dismissal of the complaint against it.
3. Evidence of the complainant consists of his affidavit Ex.CW1/1; copies of documents Ex C-1 to C-7.
4. Evidence of the OPs consists of affidavit of Rajeev Chandan, Manager Admn. of the OPs Ex.OP-1/1.
5. The complainant submitted that he is a consumer as price or cost has been mentioned on the invitation card and the one page broacher. He stated that he was not going to sell any product and avail profit from the said material. He pleaded that the delay in delivery of the consignment caused him final loss, as was unable to invite the people for introduction of saloon at Singapore.
6. On the other hand, the ld. counsel for the OPs submitted that the complainant is not a consumer as per Section 2(d)(1) of the Act, as the material was not for personal use of the complainant. The ld. counsel stated that the said material was for the purpose of promotion of beauty salon and later on, the complainant shall charge people for providing services. The ld. counsel pleaded that the complainant had not even pleaded in his complaint that he was doing the said business to earn his livelihood. The ld. counsel argued that the material was for commercial purpose, hence the present complaint deserves to be dismissed with special cost.
7. After hearing the complainant alongwith Ld. Counsel for the OPs and going through the pleadings, evidence produced by the parties and the oral arguments and written submissions, we find that there is force in the plea of the complainant. It is established from the material placed on record by the complainant that there was delay of 5 days in delivery of the articles, this point had already been discussed by this Forum vide order dated 29.01.2015.
8. The main issue involved in the present case is, whether the complainant is a consumer or not? Whether the consignment sent was for commercial purpose? We have gone through the contents of the invitation and the broacher, it is no were mentioned, that a certain price would be charged for availing of services nor any price list is mentioned. The sole purpose was for inauguration and publicity of the saloon at Singapore.
9. It has come to our notice that recently the Hon’ble National Commission, in case titled as; P & M Logistic Co.Pvt.Ltd Vs Garhwal Mandal Nigam Ltd & Anr,I(2016)CPJ 433(NC) had observed in Para no.11 as under:
“While we agree with the findings of the State Commission with respect to deficiency of service on behalf of the Appellant herein, in not delivering the consignment on time, however, we observe from the record that there is no substantial basis for awarding an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- towards compensation. Having regard to the fact that publicity material is extremely important in a tourism Fair and that participating in an exhibition without the relevant brochure and material causes immense embarrassment; at the same time it cannot be convincingly stated that every such participation would translate into tangible promotion of tourism. No mathematical calculation can be made with respect to the actual number of tourists who would have visited Uttranchal, had the delegation received the publicity material on time. Therefore, quantifying business loss to the extent of Rs.10,00,000/- is on the higher side. However, keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the element of guess work, we are of the considered upon that awarding an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation would meet the ends of justice.”
10. In our opinion the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to the case law citied above, as the complainant had also sent the articles for publicity purpose and had not earned any profit from it.
11. Accordingly, in view of our aforesaid discussion and the case titled as; P & M Logistic Co. Pvt. Ltd Vs Garhwal Mandal Nigam Ltd & Anr. (Supra), we find that the complainant is a consumer and the OPs have committed deficiency of services by not delivering the consignment within the promised time, thereby causing loss to the complainant. Hence we find that the complainant is entitled to compensation on account of mental agony amounting to Rs.15,000/- (Rs. Fifteen thousand only) alongwith litigation cost of Rs.5000/- (Rs. Five thousand only).
12. The OPs are directed to comply with the order of this Forum within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise OPs shall be liable to pay 9% interest per annum on the total cost awarded. The present complaint stands partly allowed.
The arguments on the complaint were heard on 08.08.2016 and the order was reserved. Now the order be communicated to the parties. Copy of the order be sent to the parties free of cost and thereafter the file be consigned to the record room.
Pronounced
Dated: 11.08.2016
(A.P.S.Rajput) President
(Amrinder Singh Sidhu)
Member
(Mrs. R.K. Aulakh)
Member
