M/s Corporate Professionals Etc.            …. Complainant

Versus

M/s Blazeflash Couriers Ltd. & Ors.       Opposite Parties

                                                                                          Case No. 527/2008

26.09.17

Present:               None

Keeping in view the facts recorded in the previous order sheets the complainants do not seem to be much interested in arguing the matter. We proceed to decide the case which pertains to the year 2008. 

The facts, in short, are that the complainants had booked 1718 invitation cards through OPs for sending the same to their guests on the occasion of the office opening ceremony but as the cards could not be delivered the OPs committed deficiency in service.

The case of the OP No.1 & 2 inter-alia is that no one till date has paid consideration for any courier/ service charges to any of the OPs and, therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed for want of consideration. 

In the rejoinder it has been submitted on behalf of the Complainants that no payment is pending at their end except the payment of the delivery of 1718 invitation cards as the OPs have not provided proof of delivery of the same to the complainants.

 Parties have filed their respective affidavits.

In their evidence OP No.1 & 2 have again taken the same plea that no payment of service charges had been paid to them by the complainants and, hence, there is no privity of contract between the parties.

Unless there is consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, a person cannot fall within the definition of ‘consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act. In the present case, the complainants have not filed any document even at the stage of filing their affidavit that they had paid the consideration for sending 1718 invitation cards to their guests to the OPs or had agreed to pay the same. Complainants have also not shown that there was any such arrange between the parties with regard to the payment of the courier charges as stated in the replication. Therefore, there is want of consideration. That being so, in our considered opinion, the complainants are not “consumers” as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

In view of the above discussion, we dismiss the complaint on this ground alone with no order as to costs. Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties through Speed Post. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 26.09.17.