Andhra Pradesh

Chittoor-II at triputi

CC/13/2015

Kalanjali Arts and Crafts, Rep. by its Stores Manager, A.Balaji, S/o. Veeraswamy Naidu - Complainant(s)

Versus

Komitla Logistics, Rep. by its proprietor. - Opp.Party(s)

K.Ramesh Babu

02 Jul 2016

ORDER

 

 

                                                                                                Filing Date:- 20-03-2015                                                                                                              Order Date: -02-07-2016

 

     BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-II,      

                                             CHITTOOR AT TIRUPATI.

Present: - Sri. Ramakrishnaiah, President

                                                       Smt.T.Anitha, Member

 

     SATURDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY, TWO THOUSAND AND SIXTEEN

C.C.No.13/2015

Between

Kalanjali Arts & Crafts,

Rep. by its Stores Manager,

A.Balaji, S/o. Veeraswamy Naidu,

Hindu, aged about 42 years,

No. 29, Besides K.S.R.Kalyanamandapam,

Renigunta road, Tirupati.                                                       …. Complainant

 

And

1. Komitla Logistics, rep. by its Proprietor,

   Shop No. 7-1-1060/H,

   Hafeez Complex, Besides OBC Bank,

   Lakdika Pool,

   Hyderabad.

 

2. Komitla Logistics, rep.by its Manager,

    Poorna Kumbam Circle,

    Opp.M.S.Subbalakshmi Stattue,

    Tirupati.                                                                              …. Opposite parties

 

         This complaint coming on before us for final hearing on 15.06.2016 and upon perusing the complaint, written arguments, Written version of the complainant and opposite parties and other relevant material papers on record and on hearing of Sri.K.Ramesh Babu & Sri.G.Ramaiah Pillai counsel for the complainant and Sri.N.Sudheer Reddy, counsel for the opposite parties 1 and 2 having stood over till this day for consideration, the Forum made the following.

ORDER

DELIVERED BY SMT. T. ANITHA, MEMBER

ON BEHALF OF THE BENCH

         This complaint is filed by the complainant under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986, by the complainant and prayed this Forum to direct the opposite parties to deliver the goods worth Rs.59,070-78ps to the complainant and to pay Rs.50,000/- towards damages for causing mental agony and financial loss and to pay costs of the complaint.

         2. The brief facts of the case are:  The complainant submits that it is a reputed business concern in Arts and crafts under the name and style of Kalanjali Arts & Crafts and having branches throughout the state and other states. The complainant further submits that the opposite party no.1is having office at Hyderabad and dealing business of transporting goods and opposite party no.2 is their branch at Tirupati.  The complainant booked articles (readymade garments) in the office of opposite party no.1at Hyderabad worth Rs.49,350-47ps vide STN No. 11300653/CH, STN No. Ch/11300644 worth RS.5094.66 and STN CH/1130648 worth Rs.4625.65paise in total Rs.59,071/- and he paid  the fright charges of Rs.250/- through online. As per the goods delivery bill, the goods has to be deliver in three days  by the complainant in opposite party no.2’s branch office at Tirupati. But in spite of several requests made by the complainant the opposite parties failed to deliver the consignment. Hence they lodged the police complaint with East Police Station Tirupati on 22.11.2014 and crime was registered in FIR No. 521/2014 and same was pending under investigation. At last the complainant caused a legal notice on 10.12.2014 calling upon the opposite parties to deliver the goods and to pay damages. After receipt of the same the opposite parties sent reply notice stating that the LR does not contain any value of the property and description of the goods and also made all false allegations to escape from their liability which is nothing but deficiency of service and caused mental agony to the complainant. Hence he filed the present complaint.

        3. The opposite parties came in to appearance and opposite party no.2 filed the written version with an adoption memo of opposite party no.1.  The opposite party no.2 filed the written version by denying the allegations made by the complainant and further contended that the complainant booked the goods for business transactions, hence on the ground itself the complaint is liable to be dismissed and further contended that the criminal case was filed against them under section 407 and 420 of I.P.C in East Police Station Tirupati which was pending against the opposite parties and same is still for enquiry, hence the complaint is premature and liable to be dismissed. The opposite parties further contended that the complainant failed to produce the list of articles and the particulars of the value of the goods at the time of booking the goods with the opposite parties and in order to get wrongful gain the complainant intentionally failed to produce the particulars of the goods at the time of booking and also the complainant themselves intimated to any other person known to them by showing the phone message and LR.NO in SMS  and they might have delivered the goods and gave a complaint as LR was lost in transit.  Hence until investigation is completed the complainant cannot file the present complaint as it is premature. The opposite parties further contended that the complainant stated that they paid the fright charges of Rs.250/- online, but they failed to prove with any documentary evidence, which cannot be consider without documentary proof. Hence the present complaint is premature at this stage and liable to be dismissed.

         4. On behalf of the complainant one Alam Balaji s/oVeeraswamy Naidu, Stores Manager filed his evidence on affidavit and got marked Ex.A1 to Ex. A10 were marked. On behalf of the opposite party no.2 one Chittamuri.Sankara Reddy, S/o. Venkatasubba Reddy filed his evidence on affidavit and on behalf of them Ex.B1 were marked. Both parties filed their written arguments and oral arguments were heard.

        5.  Now the points for consideration are:

              (i)  Whether the complainant will come under the purview of the consumer?

              (ii) Whether there is any deficiency of service on part of the opposite parties?          

              (iii)  Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs as prayed for? If so? To

                       what extent?            

              (iv)   To what Result?

          6. Point No:-(i):-  Whether the complainant will come under the purview of the

                                     Consumer?

        There is no dispute regarding the booking of the consignment by the complainant in opposite party no.1 branch at Hyderabad on 21.08.2014 and same was admitted by the opposite parties. The main contention of the complainant is, they booked the articles (readymade garments) from Hyderabad on 21.08.2014 by paying fright charges of Rs.250/- through online and consignment to be delivered in three days in opposite party no.2 branch at Tirupati. But the opposite parties failed to deliver the goods even after several requests made by the complainant and he filed the criminal case in East Police Station, Tirupati on 22.11.2014 and same was pending for investigation. At last the complainant caused the legal notice after receipt of the said notice the opposite parties gave reply with all false allegations in order to escape their liability which is nothing but deficiency of service.

        The opposite parties came in to appearance and filed their written version by contending that  the complainant failed to prove with any documentary evidence that he paid the consideration of Rs.250/- towards consignment charges and also contended that at the time of  booking of the articles the complainant failed to mention the list of the goods and their value. The main contention of the opposite parties are that the complainant booked the consignment consisting of readymade garments which is meant for sale, hence the complainant will not come under the purview of the consumer hence the present complaint is not the consumer dispute and also contended that the complainant filed the present complaint when the criminal case was pending hence it is a premature one and there is no deficiency of service on part of them.

        But it is an admitted fact that the complainant booked the consignment which consists of readymade garments on 21.08.2014 at opposite party no.1’s branch and in order to prove that Ex.A1 stock transfer note which consists of list of articles of Kalanjali, Hyderabad was filed and Ex.A4 and A5 showing the value of the goods also filed. The complainant filed Ex.A3 the way bill issued by Commercial Tax Department of Telangana issued on 21.08.2014 which clearly shows that readymade garments and hosiery goods was booked by the complainant to their Tirupati store for business purpose. Hence the complainant booked the consignment consists of the goods of readymade garments were bought for commercial purpose.  Here it is appropriate to refer the decision of National Commission in Suzuki Motorcycle Pvt. Ltd Vs. Nagana Road lines.[Consumer Complaint No.185 of 2009 decided on 12.10.2015 and reported in I (2016) CPJ 594(NC). In this decision, it was “held that the complainant no.1 is a company and engaged in business of manufacture and sale of motor cycle and spare parts- machines damaged in accident were meant for shop of the complainant no.1for manufacturing of motorcycle and thus for commercial purpose- Complainant is not a consumer as defined under section 2(1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act”, which reads as under 2(1)(d) of C. P. Act ‘Consumer’ means any person who-

 (i)Buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid any partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose or

(ii)[hires or avails of ] any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who [hires or avails of] the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person[but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose]

       (Explanation- For the purpose of this clause, “Commercial purpose does not include use by a person of goods bought and used by him and services availed by him exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.

         In the present case also the complainant availed services of the opposite parties for transporting goods (handloom goods readymade garments) for their business purpose is nothing but commercial transaction. The complainant failed to establish their case with any documentary evidence to prove that they will come under the purview of the consumer when the opposite parties specifically pointed out the jurisdiction and they failed to give any clarification about the particular aspect in their evidence affidavit or in their written arguments filed by the complainant which draws adverse inference.

        In view of the above discussion, the complainant availed services of the opposite parties for booking of the goods for commercial purpose, hence they will not come under the purview of the definition of the consumer and they cannot maintain consumer complaint and the complainant can approach the appropriate Forum which is having jurisdiction. Hence accordingly this point is answered against the complainant.

        7.Point No. (ii):- as already point no.1 is answered against the complainant the question of deficiency of service would not arise. Accordingly this point is answered.

        8.Point No.(iii):- as already point no.1 & 2 is discussed against the complainant the question of entitlement would not arise.

       9.Point (iv):-    In the result, the complaint is  dismissed. No Costs.

       Dictated to the stenographer, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and pronounced by me in the Open Forum this the 2^nd day of July, 2016.

         Sd/-                                                                                                                Sd/-

  Lady Member                                                                                                             President

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Complainant.

 

PW-1: Alam Balaji (Chief/ Evidence Affidavit filed).

 

Witnesses Examined on behalf of Opposite Parties.

 

RW-1: Chittamuri Sankara Reddy (Chief Affidavit filed).

 

 

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANTS

 

Exhibits (Ex.A)	Description of Documents
	Statement showing the list of articles issued by Kalanjali Handloom conversion, Hyderabad (3 in No.).  Dt: 20.08.2014.
	Photo copy of L.R.No.765 issued by Komitla logistics to the Complainant, Tirupati. Dt: 21.08.2014.
	True copy of Way bill issued by CTO. Dt: 21.08.2014.
	Photo copy of Goods delivery bills for Rs.49,350.47 ps. issued by Kalanjali, Hyderabad.
	Photo copy of Goods delivery bills for Rs.9,720.31 ps. issued by Kalanjali, Hyderabad.
	Photo copy of Complainant lodged by the complainant to the East PS, Tirupati. Dt: 22.11.2014.
	Photo copy of FIR No.521/2014. Dt: 22.11.2014.
	Office copy of notice to the Opposite Parties. Dt: 10.12.2014.
	Acknowledgement of Opposite Party No.1. Dt: 17.12.2014.
	Reply notice of Opposite Parties.

 

EXHIBITS MARKED ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES

 

Exhibits   (Ex.B)	Description of Documents
1.	Photo copy of Luggage Slip. L.R.No.765. Dt: 21.08.2014.

 

 

 

    Sd/-

                                                                                                                         President

 

 

 

                                                            // TRUE COPY //

                                                            // BY ORDER //

 

 

 

                                                      Head Clerk/Sheristadar,

                                             Dist. Consumer Forum-II, Tirupati

 

 

 

Copies to: 1) The complainant

                 2) The Opposite Parties