The complainant on 14.09.2020 has filed a complaint U/s 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.

The case of the complainant, in brief, is that Nirmal Roy of Bidrohi More, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur runs a business named as “Sree Ma Bastralaya”. The complainant hired the services of “Jai Bajrangbali Transport Co”, Jaipur Branch B-70, Transport Nagar, Pali-Marwar, Rajasthan, Pin-306401 for transporting 310 bed sheets value of Rs.44,258/-(Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Eight Only). The complainant stated that after long days he did not receive the consignment from the transport. The “Jai Bajrangbali Transport Co” charged Rs.1,750/-(One Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty Only) for transportation cost of the consignment from Jaipur to Raiganj. After few days the complainant went to the Raiganj Branch Office of the “Jai Bajrangbali Transport Co” at N.H34, FCI More, Raiganj to enquire about the consignment. The Branch Manager who is opposite party No-3 in this case stated to the complainant that due to pandemic COVID-19 the consignment is hampered. The consignment has yet to reach Raiganj. It is further stated by the complainant that he sent an Advocate’s notice on 29.06.2020 to the O.P.No-1 to take necessary initiative to receive the goods within 7 days after receiving the letters. But O.P.Nos-1 & 2 made no response. After lapse of many more days the complainant came to the Ld. Commission for his legal claim to redress the deficiency of service on the part of the Transport Company. The complainant also stated that due to non performing of their sincere act in time the complainant suffered Rs.44,258/-(Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Eight Only).

Under the above facts and circumstances, the complainant prays before the Commission to direct the O.P to pay Rs. 44,258/-(Forty Four Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Eight Only) that is the value of the consignment to the complainant, Rs.50,000/-  as compensation for his mental pain and agony and Rs.25,000/- as litigation cost.

The O.P.Nos-1 & 2 did not appear to contest the case though the notices were served upon them. Accordingly, the case is heard ex parte against O.P.Nos-1 & 2. The O.P.No-3 has contested the case by filing W.V. The specific case of the O.P.No-3 is that the goods were booked at Jaipur through “Jai Bajrangbali Transport Co”. O.P.No-3 made several phone calls to O.P.Nos-1 & 2 for transportation of goods in question to Raiganj. But O.P.Nos-1 & 2 did not send the goods to the complainant at Raiganj. The O.P.No-3 also stated that he sent a letter to O.P.No-1 for early transportation of the goods to Raiganj, but the letter was returned back as the consignment not reached at Raiganj and he did not take any amount of commission from that consignment and apart from this O.P.No-3 tried his level best so that complainant able to receive his consignment as such he is not liable for the same.

Upon this background the O.P.No-3 claims the dismissal of the case.

D e c i s i o n W i t h R e a s o n s

In order to prove the case the complainant has examined himself as P.W.1. He also files documents which have been marked as Exhibits 1, 2 & 3.

O.P.No-3 also has been examined and cross examined as O.P.W.1. The O.P.No-3 filed a closed envelope as document which was not marked as exhibited. On perusal of the record, evidence, documents we are of opinion that the Complainant Nirmal Kumar Roy is a business man. He runs a cloth shop at Bidrohi More, Raiganj namely “Sree Ma Bastralaya”. On his complaint the complainant admitted that he purchased 3 hundred and 10 numbers (310) of bed sheets for sell from his shop. Everyone runs their business for livelihood, we know but in this instant case the complainant bought those products for resale from his shop and he mentioned that on his complaint. Hence, Nirmal Roy the complainant cannot be treated as consumer as provided U/s 2 (7) (i) of Consumer protection Act, 2019 that “Consumer means any person who buys any goods but does not includes a person who obtained such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose”. The complainant fails to prove that he is a consumer before the Commission U/s 2 (7) (i) of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 because he purchased the goods for commercial purpose. On the other hand the complainant claimed before this Commission to redress the deficiency of service on the part of the O.P / Transport Company. On this point it is clear that the O.P.No-1 the Proprietor Shri Dharampal Sharma, “Jai Bajrangbali Transport Company” and the O.P.No-2 the Branch Manager, Jaipur Branch “Jai Bajrangbali Transport Co.” did not appear to contest the case though the notices were served upon them, not only that the O.P.No-3 who is Raiganj Branch Manager of that Transport Company, in his written version as well as in his evidence mentioned that he made several phone calls to O.Ps for transportation of the goods in question to Raiganj, as well as he sent letter to the O.Ps which were returned back.

So, we can say that the complainant was cheated by the O.Ps. It is not the case of deficiency of service, the complainant should go the proper Forum for his legal claim. The claim of the complainant to redress the deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps is not lie. So, the question of deficiency of service on the part of the O.Ps claimed by the complainant does not arise at all in this case.

Hence, it is

O r d e r e d

That this complaint case being No:- CC-32/20 be and the same is dismissed on contest but without any cost.

Let a copy of this order be given to the parties free of cost.