DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION PALAKKAD
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2022
Present : Sri.Vinay Menon V., President
: Smt.Vidya A., Member
Date of filing:12/12/2018
CC/172/2018
Prevencao Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd - Complainant
Deccan Building,Mettupalayam Street,
Palakkad.-1
Represented by its Managing Director,
Binu Radhakrishnan, S/o E.Radhakrishnan,
4/87 Bhamavilas,Akathethara,Palakkad.
(By Adv.Bharathy.P)
Vs
1.Log-In- Logistics
Arichol –Puthoor,Kottakkal,Malappuram-676 503.
Represented by its Manager.
(By Adv.S.Sunil Kumar)
2. Log-In-Logistics, - Opposite Parties
MM Complex, Mettupalayam Street,
Palakkad.-1
Represented by its Manager
(By Adv.P.Padmaprakash)
O R D E R
By Smt.Vidya A., Member
1. The case of the complainant is briefly stated as under-
The complainant company is a pharmaceutical company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Palakkad. It is represented by its Managing Director and he is the authorised officer to represent the company and conduct the case. The complainant company availed the courier service of the 2nd opposite party for delivery of the pharmaceutical products to one CPM Medicals in Thrissur on 06/07/2018. The company sent five cases of medicines which included both syrup and tablets which were tightly packed. Four cases of medicines were delivered on 07/07/2018 and the remaining one case was delivered two days later. On enquiry, the opposite party informed that the delay in delivery of the 5th case was due to its misplacement. The owner of the consignee medical shop informed the MD of the complainant company that the case which was delivered later was fully damaged and the pharmaceutical products including syrup and tablets were damaged severely and were not in a position to be sold in market. All the five cases contained medicines worth Rs.30,000/- each. The damage is only due to the carelessness and irresponsible conduct on the part of the staff of the opposite party. This is a clear case of Deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and because of that the complainant company lost medicines worth Rs.30,000/- and suffered mental agony. Even though they caused issuance of a lawyer’s notice, the opposite party did not revert or compensate the complainant.
So this complaint is filed for directing the opposite parties to pay Rs.60,000/- to the complainant company towards the damage of the medicines and compensation for the loss together with cost.
2. Complaint was admitted and notices were issued to the opposite parties. Opposite parties 1 & 2 filed their version.
3. The main contentions raised by the 1st opposite party in their version are as follows.:-
The complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under the Act and is not having any right to approach the Forum for redressing the grievance mentioned in the complaint.
The 1st opposite party is a transporter/courier service provider and is engaged in logistic solutions having fair business ethics. The opposite party has taken full care and diligence in transporting the five boxes of medicines which have been booked for delivery from Palakkad to Thrissur. Four cases were delivered on 06/07/2018 itself but the fifth case could not be delivered due to lack of availability of space in the vehicle and it was delivered in the very next day morning itself. The 1st opposite party has given proper care and caution to the delivered boxes and if any damage has been caused to the consignment, the consigner and consignee are responsible for the same due to unprofessional packing or inappropriate handling. The value of the medicines alleged to be in the cases are not known to the opposite party. The complaint has to be dismissed with their cost.
4. The 2nd opposite party in their version had raised more or less same contentions as that of the 1st opposite party. The 2nd opposite party is only a Branch manager who is in charge of receiving the consignments which is brought by persons and despatching the same. The 2nd opposite party has taken all due care and diligence in handling the consignment of the complainant and if any damage was caused, it is only due to the improper packing by the complainant. This complaint has been filed for making unlawful enrichment and it has to be dismissed with cost.
5. The complainant filed chief affidavit in evidence and produced some documents along with the complaint. The complainant was continuously absent for so many postings and the documents were not marked as there was no representation from their part when posted for evidence. Opposite parties did not file proof affidavit Evidence closed and taken for orders.
6. The main points arising for consideration are
1. Whether the complainant is a ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer
Protection Act ?
2. Whether there is any Deficiency in Service/Unfair Trade Practice
on the part of opposite parties ?
3. Whether the complaint is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?
4. Reliefs, if any.
Point No.1
7. From the complaint , it can be seen that the complainant company is a pharmaceutical company registered under the Companies Act having its registered office at Palakkad and it is represented by its Managing Director. The complainant company availed the service of the opposite party for couriering its pharmaceutical products to one medical shop named CPM Medicals at Thrissur. The company send five cases of medicines to that shop for sale. It is not stated anywhere in the complaint that they are conducting the pharmaceutical business for the purpose of earning their livelihood. It is seen that the complainant company is conducting the business to earn substantial profit and not merely for earning livelihood. So it comes under ‘Commercial purpose’ and excluded from the definition of ‘Consumer’. Here the complainant company availed the service of the opposite party courier service for transporting its consignment for commercial purpose and to earn profit from that. So the complainant company is excluded from the purview of ‘Consumer’ under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 ( complaint is filed under the Act of 1986).
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a latest decision rendered in Shrikanth G. Mantri. Vs Punjab National Bank (2022 Live Law S C 197) observed that “ business to business dispute cannot be construed as consumer disputes. When a person avails a service for a commercial purpose, to come within the meaning of consumer, he will have to establish that the services were availed exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self employment.”
8. The opposite parties have raised this contention that the complainant
is not a consumer even though they have not specifically stated the
reason to exclude it from the Definition.
9. Even if we attempt to decide the complaint on merits, the
complainant has not produced or marked any documents for us to rely
on so as to arrive at any conclusion on merits. The complainant
produced some photographs and CD containing the pictures of damaged
packets of tablets. They claimed the value of the damaged medicines to be
Rs.30,000/- and prayed for directing the opposite party to refund the amount
together with compensation. Despite the pleadings, no evidence is
forthcoming as to the number of packets of medicines damaged, its cost etc.
Further there was no attempt on their part to prove their contention that the
damage was due to improper handling by the opposite party.
In the result, the complaint is dismissed.
Pronounced in the open court on this the 27th day of June 2022.
Sd/-
Vinay Menon V
President
Sd/-
Vidya A
Member
Annexure
Exhibits marked on the side of complainant
Nil
Exhibits marked on the side of Opposite parties
Nil
Witness examined from complainant’s side:- NIL
Witness examined from opposite party’s side:- NIL
Cost: NIL
