KERALA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,
SISUVIHARLANE VAZHUTHACADU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPEAL NO. 559/14
ORDER DATED. 10.04.2018
(Appeal filed against the Order in CC.No. 503/14, CDRF, Ernakulam)
PRESENT:
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESA CHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.V.V.JOSE : MEMBER
APPELLANT:
MEC Engineers ( India), Airapuram P.O,
Keezhillam, Perumbavoor, cochin. 683541,
Represented by Deepu Ranjit, Managing Partner,
M/s Mec. Engineers, S/o B. Ranjit residing at Souparnika,
Market P.O, Velloorkunnam, Muvattupuzha, Pin. 686673,
Ernakulam.
( By Adv. M.B. Sandeep)
(2)
V/S
RESPONDENTS:
- The Manager DTDC Courier & Cargo,
XIV 768 Kandooth Buildings, Kacherithazham,
Muvattupuzha, 6866661.
- The Manger, DTDC courier& cargo Ltd,
No.3, Victoria road, Bangalore- 560047, Karnataka.
- The Manager, DTDC courier& cargo ltd,
Customer service, no. 59/3368, APM building,
North railway station, Kochi, Ernakulam, Pin. 682018.
(By Adv. Bindu Mathew)
ORDER
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESA CHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
Complainant is the appellant. Complainant, a partnership firm, filed the complaint in CC.503/14 before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam, for short the district forum, alleging deficiency of service by the opposite party, a courier service with whom it entrusted an envelope for transmission and service to the addressee. The lower forum holding that the complainant availed the service of the opposite party for
(3)
commercial purpose, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved, complainant has preferred this appeal.
2. On the request of counsel on both sides, appeal has been posted for hearing at Camp Sitting at Ernakulam. There was no representation for both sides when the appeal was taken up for hearing.
3. We have perused the records to examine the correctness of the Order passed by the lower forum. We find that the complainant in connection with commercial activities carried by it, availed the services of the opposite party, a courier service. Forum below was fully justified in holding that the complainant cannot be considered as a consumer u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The dismissal of the complaint is proper, valid and correct. There is no merit in the appeal.
(4)
Appeal is dismissed directing both sides to suffer their cost.
HON’BLE JUSTICE SRI.S.S.SATHEESA CHANDRAN : PRESIDENT
SRI.T.S.P. MOOSATH : JUDICIAL MEMBER
SRI.V.V.JOSE : MEMBER
Rj/ ekm
