BEFORE THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, ERNAKULAM.
Dated this the 21st day of December 2013
Filed on : 12/03/2012
PRESENT:
Shri. A. Rajesh, President.
Shri. Sheen Jose, Member.
Smt. Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
CC.154/2012
Between
Binesh P.N., : Complainant
Proprietor, Gallexy Services, (By Adv. M.N. Sanjith,
40/822, C2, 11 Floor, C.C.40/9009, III Floor, Nedum-
Erumbayil Complex, Chittoor road, Chalil Chambers, Mullassery
Cochin-682 011. Canal Road,M.G. Road Jn,
Cochin-11)
Vs
1. M/s. Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., : Opposite parties
2nd Floor, North Plaza Building, (By Adv. Roy Varghese,
North Railway Station Road, Olimolath, Pancode P.O.,
Cochin-682 018. Ernakulam-682 310)
2. Managing Director,
M/s. Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd.,
2nd floor, North Plaza building,
North Railway Station Road,
Cochin-682 018.
O R D E R
A Rajesh, President.
The case of the complainant is as follows:
The complainant is engaged in the business of servicing mobile phones. On 08-11-2011 the complainant sent a parcel said to cost Rs.15,000/- to Mr. Vinod, ‘Zest n Green’, 2nd Floor, Anughara Arcade, T.D Road, Kacheri Jn, Quilon through the opposite parties. But the same was not delivered to the consignee. Time and again the complainant requested the opposite parties to compensate the loss suffered, but to no avail. Thus the complainant is before us seeking direction against the opposite parties to pay the value of the goods together with compensation and costs of the proceedings.
2. At the threshold the opposite parties challenged the very maintainability of this complaint in this Forum stating that the complainant has availed the service of the opposite parties for commercial purpose and so the complainant is not a consumer within the ambit of the Consumer Protection Act.
3. The complainant was examined as PW1 and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked on his side. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was adduced by the opposite parties. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.
4. Admittedly the complainant is engaged in the business of mobile phone servicing which is a commercial establishment. The complainant has nowhere pleaded in the complaint that the business is being conducted as self employment for livelihood. Nor was claimed that the service provided by the opposite parties was being availed of exclusively for the purpose of livelihood by means of self employment by the complainant.
5.The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Economic Transport Corporation Vs. Cherran Spinning Mills (P) Ltd and another 2010 (CPR (Supreme Court) (CP) 379 held in para 25 as follows:
“We may also notice that Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act was amended by Amendment Act 62 of 2002 with effect from 15-03-2003 by adding the words “but does not include a person who avails of such Services for any commercial purpose” in the definition of ‘Consumer’. After the said amendment if the service of the carrier had been availed for any commercial purpose, then the person availing the service will not be a consumer and consequently complaints will not be maintainable in such cases”.
6. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the law of the land we are only to direct the complainant to receive back the complaint and the related documents to submit before the appropriate authority if so advised.
Pronounced in the open Forum on this the 21st day of December 2013.
Sd/-A. Rajesh, President.
Sd/- Sheen Jose, Member.
Sd/-Beena Kumari V.K., Member.
Forwarded/By Order,
Senior Superintendent.
Copy of order despatched on :
By Post: By Hand:
Appendix
Complainant’s Exhibits:
Ext. A1 : Shipper copy
A2 : Copy of declaration
A3 : Copy of invoice dt. 03/09/2011
A4 : Legal notice dt. 04-01-2012
A5 : Reply Notice dt. 02-02-2012
Opposite party’s Exhibits: : Nil
