DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. CASE NO. 494/2016
Date of Filing: Date of Admission: Date of Disposal:
01.08.2016 05.08.2016 17.11.2017
Complainant:- M/s. Choibari Tea and Industries Limited,
7A, Lake View Road, Kolkata-700 029.
Represented by its authorized signatories Sri. Arghya Seth,
S/o Sri. Pradyut Seth, 7A, Lake View Road, Kolkata-700 029.
Vs.
Opposite Parties:- 1) DTDC Express Limited, formerly DTDC Courier &
Cargo Limited, DTDC Bhavan,
404/405, Kaji Nazrul Islam Sarani, VIP Road,
Raghunathpur, Kolkata-700 059, P.S.-Baguiati.
2) DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited, Lake View Branch,
177/1, S.P. Mukherjee Road,Kolkata-700 026,
P.S.-Tollygunge.
3) DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited,
107 A, Rashbehari Avenue, Kolkata-700 029, P.S.-Lake.
P R E S E N T :- Sri. Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay…………President.
:- Sri. Siddhartha Ganguli ….………………………Member.
:- Smt. Silpi Majumder………………………………Member.
ORDER: 12
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not hand over the undelivered materials to the Complainant till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that being a Private Limited Company it sent two cartoons containing materials to their Tea Garden at Assam on 29.09.2014 through the OP-3 being the authorized agent of the OP-1 and 2. The Complainant paid due consideration amount to the OP-3 and the OP-3 issued receipt against such payment in favour of the Complainant. Out of the two consignments one has already reached at the destination safely, but another consignment has not reached the destination till date. The Complainant enquired about the said consignment on several occasions, but the OPs did not turn up with any solutions or provided any cogent reason for such non-delivery of the said consignment. The undelivered consignment contains very urgent and confidential documents and ID cards of the labors/workmen of the Assam Tea Garden. The Complainant sent one enquiry letter to the OP-2 on 03.11.2014, but no reply is forthcoming as yet. The Complainant used to maintain regular contact with the OPs over telephone as the Complainant is very much eager for the said vital documents, not only that, the Complainant has been facing severe problem due to such non-delivery of the article. On 19.11.2014 one letter was written by the Complainant to the OPs, but the OPs kept them silent over the matter. For this reason the payment could not be made to the labors/workmen of the said Tea Garden. The Executives have repeatedly requested the OPs to intimate the cause of non-delivery of the consignment when another consignment had already been reached at the destination, but the OPs are deliberately and willfully avoiding the same till date without assigning any reason. Further letter was issued by the Complainant on 22.12.2014 demanding compensation due to non-delivery of the consignment, but the OPs did not bother to reply the said letter. Thereafter the Complainant lodged complaint before the Secretary, Department of Consumer Affairs, wherein after giving due opportunity to the parties said Department issued a letter dated 07.09.2015 through which information was given to the Complainant that the OPs neither submitted any report nor communicated that they are ready to settle the dispute amicably. Hence having no alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing the complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to hand over the undelivered material to the Complainant at an early date, to pay compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- due to harassment, mental pain and agony and litigation cost of Rs.30,000/- to him.
The petition of complaint have been contested by the OPs by filing written version contending that admitted the Complainant is a Private Limited Company and as per the settled principle of Law the Private Limited Company cannot maintain a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In this regard there are several judgments passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC as well as the Hon’ble SCDRC. As the Complainant cannot be termed as consumer, hence the present complaint is not maintainable before this ld. Forum and on this score the same is liable to be dismissed. The OPs have further stated that the undelivered consignment was returned to the OP-3 from where the Complainant sent the consignment and the Complainant was informed and requested to collect the undelivered consignment, but the Complainant refused to take the consignment. According to the OPs the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost being devoid of any merit and not maintainable.
The Complainant has adduced evidence on affidavit along with some documents in support of his contention, as per prayer of the OPs their written version has been treated as their evidence on affidavit, the OPs have filed BNA and with some rulings on which they have placed reliance.
We have carefully perused the record, papers and documents filed by the contesting parties and the rulings on which the OPs have relied. The contesting parties have advanced their argument through their respective Ld. Advocates.
At the very outset we are to adjudicate upon as to whether the Complainant can be termed as consumer or not and on this score whether this complaint is maintainable before this Ld. Forum or not. It is seen by us that in the petition of complaint it is mentioned that being the authorized representative of the Complainant-Private Limited Company Sri. Arghya Seth sent two consignments to the Assam Tea Garden availing of the service from the OPs. Out of which one consignment has reached at the destination but the remaining one has not reached therein till filing of this complaint. The dispute by and between the parties revolves within a very short compass as to why another consignment has not reached at the destination and in this respect why the OPs could not make any convincing and cogent reason. The OPs have stated that a Private Limited Company cannot be a consumer and hence it is not empowered to initiate any consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OPs have placed reliance on some rulings in support of their contention which as follows-
- RP-3517/2007, passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of M/s. Computer Services (P) Limited vs. M/s. Allena Auto Industries Private Limited, dated 14.03.2012.
- FA/662/2013, passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal, in the case of DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited & Another vs. M/s. Future Value Retail Limited, dated 28.11.2014.
- CC/56/2011, passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal, in the case of Family Credit Limited vs. State Bank of India, dated 11.03.2014.
We have carefully perused the abovementioned rulings. It is seen by us that in the first ruling the Hon’Ble NCDRC has been pleased to observe that The Private Limited Company is not a consumer under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Company does the commercial activities for its shareholders, question of earning livelihood by means of self employment would not arise. In the second and third ruling the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB was pleased to hold that a Private Limited Company cannot maintain a consumer complaint and therefore the Complainant cannot be said a consumer.
The aforementioned rulings in our view are applicable in the case in hand as the facts of the relied cases are almost similar and identical with the instant complaint. Therefore having regard to the abovementioned judgments we are of the view that the present Complainant cannot be termed as consumer and for this reason the complaint initiated by the Private limited Company is not maintainable as a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the consumer complaint no-494/2016 is hereby dismissed on contest. Considering the facts and circumstances of this complaint there is no order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost as per the provision of the CPR, 2005.
Member Member President
