Karnataka

Bangalore 2nd Additional

CC/1934/2007

Sree Meerambika Agencies,M.Ramesh, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Gokulraj Travels, - Opp.Party(s)

N.R. Girish

29 Feb 2008

ORDER


IInd ADDL. DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, BANGALORE URBAN
No.1/7, Swathi Complex, 4th Floor, Seshadripuram, Bangalore-560 020
consumer case(CC) No. CC/1934/2007

Sree Meerambika Agencies,M.Ramesh,
...........Appellant(s)

Vs.

Gokulraj Travels,
...........Respondent(s)


BEFORE:


Complainant(s)/Appellant(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):


OppositeParty/Respondent(s):




Consumer Court Lawyer

Best Law Firm for all your Consumer Court related cases.

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!
5.0 (615)

Bhanu Pratap

Featured Recomended
Highly recommended!

Experties

Consumer Court | Cheque Bounce | Civil Cases | Criminal Cases | Matrimonial Disputes

Phone Number

7982270319

Dedicated team of best lawyers for all your legal queries. Our lawyers can help you for you Consumer Court related cases at very affordable fee.

ORDER

Date of Filing:17.09.2007 Date of Order:29.02.2008 BEFORE THE II ADDITIONAL DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM SESHADRIPURAM BANGALORE-20 Dated: 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 PRESENT Sri. S.S. NAGARALE, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), President. Smt. D. LEELAVATHI, M.A.LL.B, Member. Sri. BALAKRISHNA. V. MASALI, B.A, LL.B. (SPL.), Member. COMPLAINT NO: 1934 OF 2007 Sree Meerambika Agencies, No.723/A, I Floor, 5th Main, 8th Cross, Hanumanthanagar, Bangalore-560 019. Complainant V/S Gokulraj Travels, No.22, A.V. Road, Kalasipalyam, Bangalore-560 002. Opposite Party ORDER By the Lady Member Smt. D. Leelavathi This complaint is filed by the complainant claiming Rs.14,100/- and Rs.1,000/- towards costs of the litigation. The facts of the case are that, the complainant is an agency by name Sri. Meerambika Agencies. The complainant had sent a consignment of 30 Medical Oil bottles of Coryeza Oil-3 in a box, well packed through opposite party to be handed over at Erode. Due to mishandling while transporting, 10 bottles were damaged and the complainant has incurred a loss of Rs.14,100/-. The same was brought to the notice of the opposite party on 20/4/2007 and the opposite party has not responded. Hence the complaint. 2. Notice was issued to opposite party. Notice was served and the opposite party put in his appearance through counsel and also filed his version and affidavit. The version of the opposite party is that, a consignment was booked by the complainant which is to be delivered to Sri. Amman Traders at Erode. At the time of booking the said consignment, the complainant did not enclose the nature of goods or insured the said consignment. In fact the said Amman Traders did not disclose the nature or value of the goods. The wooden box was collected by the Amman Traders at Erode. The opposite party further submits that the said consignment was carried with full care and caution and delivered the same to Amman Traders at Erode. The opposite party further submits that the complainant is running the business and it comes under commercial purpose and is not a consumer and this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint since, the complainant is not a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant with an intention to avoid paying of Court fees in the Civil Court, he has filed this complaint before this Forum. In view of all these reasons stated above, the opposite party prayed to dismiss the complaint. 3. Affidavit evidence of both the parties filed. Arguments heard. 4. The points for consideration are:- 1. Whether the complaint is maintainable? 2. Whether the complainant is entitled for any relief? REASONS 5. The complaint is running a business under the name and style as Sri. Meerambika Agencies and he has not mentioned anywhere in the complaint that he is a consumer under this act nor produced any document to show the same. It is an admitted fact that the complainant had sent a consignment containing medicines to Amman Traders at Erode and there is no documentary proof to show that the consignment was damaged. Under these circumstances, we arrive at a conclusion that the complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. However, the complainant is at liberty to file a case before the Civil Court. In the result, we proceed to pass the following:- ORDER 6. The complaint is dismissed as not maintainable. No order as to costs. 7. Send the copy of this Order to both the parties free of costs immediately. 8. Pronounced in the Open Forum on this 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008. Order accordingly, MEMBER We concur the above findings. MEMBER PRESIDENT