Date of filing : 28-04-2012
Date of order : 30-01-2013
IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KASARAGOD
CC.128/2012
Dated this, the 30th day of January 2013
RESENT
SRI.K.T.SIDHIQ : PRESIDENT
SMT.P.RAMADEVI : MEMBER
SMT. K.G.BEENA : MEMBER
Rafeeque.E.A, S/o. Abdulla, : Complainant
Delux Fancy, Chattanchal,
Po.Thekkil, Kasaragod.Dt.
(Adv.A.Balakrishnan Nair,Kasaragod)
1. Franch Express Network Pvt.Ltd, : Opposite parties
No.30,’U’ Block, 10th street,Ammanagar,
Chennai, Tamilnadu, 600040.
2. Franchy Express Net work Pvt Ltd,
Creative Communication, CJB 576,
Koval City, Coimbatore, Tamilnadu.
3. Franch Express Network Pvt. Ltd,
Home Links Lodge, Kasaragod.
(Ops 1 to 3 exparte)
O R D E R
SMT.K.G.BEENA, MEMBER
The facts of the case is that a parcel was sent by Micro covering Uppukinar lane, Coimbathur to the complainant through opposite party No.2 on 8-11-2011. At the time of booking it is informed to him that the parcel will be served to the complainant within 3 days from the date of booking. The parcel contains guaranteed gold covering items with weight of 11.500 Kg and cost of the articles is Rs.1,50,000/-. Opposite parties failed to deliver the parcel as promised and it reached Kasaragod after one month. The deficiency in service on the part of opposite parties caused heavy loss, hardship and mental agony to the complainant.
2. Notice to opposite parties served. But they remained absent. Name of opposite parties 1,2 & 3 called absent and set exparte.
3. Complainant produced Exts A1 to A5 to prove this case. Ext.A1 is a consignment receipt issued by opposite party No.1 to the complainant. Ext.A5 is the copy of lawyer notice sent by the complainant to opposite party No.2 on 12-03-2012.
4. Complainant in his affidavit states that he is having a fancy store at Chattanchal and he is self employed. On 8-11-2011 he purchased guaranteed gold covering ornaments with weight of 11.500 Kg with a cost of Rs.1,50,000/- from Coimbatore. After purchasing the gold covering ornaments the complainant packed it and sent through opposite party No.2 to the complainant’s address. But the parcel was not received by the complainant so far. Complainant has produced documents Exts A1 to A5 to prove his case. While perusing the affidavit of the complainant and documents we are of the view that this complaint will not stand before this Forum, as the complainant does not fall under the definition of consumer. The word ‘Consumer’ in Sec 2(d) of Consumer Protection Act is well defined in Laxmi Engineering Works V/s PSG Industrial Institute 1995 RD-SC 211 (4th April 1995) it excludes “ A person who obtain such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”. In the light of the discussions made in the above case law this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum.
In the result, complaint is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Exts.
A1. 8-11-2011 receipt issued by OP
A2. Returned lawyer notice.
A3. Returned cover
A4. Acknowledgement card.
A5. 12-03-2012 copy of lawyer notice.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
MEMBER MEMBER PRESIDENT
Pj/ Forwarded by Order
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT