T.K.S. Overseas vs. M/s Freight India Logistics Pvt. ltd. & Anr.

Case No. 669/10

31.10.17

Heard.

We proceed to decide the case on merits.

As per averments made in the complaint, the complainant booked its manufactured goods as detailed in the complaint to be delivered in USA through OP-1 is stated to be agent of OP-2; that the consignee / buyer of the USA refused to make the payment of the goods due to which the complainant suffered huge losses; that the complainant asked OP-2 to return the goods immediately and that the complainant will bear the expenses for returning the same but however, the OPs avoided the matter. Hence, pleading deficiency in service on the part of OPs, the complainant has filed the present complaint for issuing directions to the OPs to pay Rs. 6,47,712/- towards amount  of goods (after conversion to Indian Rupees), Rs. 2,94,672/- towards interest being lost due to non selling of the goods and Rs. 10,50,000/- towards damages for deficiency of services, mental harassment and agony.

Affidavit of Shri Rakesh Dayal, partner of the complainant has been filed in evidence.

          In order to show the deficiency on the part of the OPs, counsel for the complainant has taken us through the copies of document Mark as Ex. CW-1/4 (colly).

Case No. 669/10

-2-

The said exhibit also contains page no. 10 which we mark as Mark-A for the purposes of proper identification which is stated to be an email message sent on behalf of OP-2 to the complainant and the said email message OP-2 has given the details of the freight charges of the shipment and other charges to be paid by the complainant to them for reshipment of the goods. However, it is clear that the complainant did not pay the said charges to            OP-2 or to OP-1.

It is also not the case of the complainant that the complainant agreed to pay these charges to the OPs at any subsequent stage.

Therefore, when the complainant itself did not make the payment of these charges to the OPs, there is no deficiency in service on the part of OPs.

Therefore, the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.

In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit in the complaint and accordingly we dismiss the complaint with no order as to costs.

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties as per regulation 21 of the Consumer Protection Regulations. Thereafter file be consigned to record room.

Announced on 31.10.2017