BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES

REDRESSAL FORUM, JALANDHAR.

Complaint No.97 of 2015

Date of Instt. 12.3.2015

Date of Decision :12.03.2015

Kanwaljit Singh aged about 59 years son of Gurbax Singh R/o B-II-153/17B, Guru Nanak Pura West, Jalandhar.

..........Complainant

Versus

M/s Thakur Dharam Chand & Sons, B-59 Udhay Nagar, Nakodar Road, Jalandhar.

.........Opposite party

Complaint Under the Consumer Protection Act.

Before: S. Jaspal Singh Bhatia (President)

Ms. Jyotsna Thatai (Member)

Sh.Parminder Sharma (Member)

Present: Complainant in person.

Order

J.S Bhatia (President)

1. Office report seen. Complaint be registered. The complainant has filed the present complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, against the opposite parties on the averments that the complainant is owner in possession of vehicle No.PB-10D-9649 mentioned above and is in possession of valid route permit for Punjab & Chandigarh. On 29.5.2014, the complainant loaded the said vehicle with luggage of the opposite party to be delivered at Nangal, Punjab. Due to clerical mistake of the opposite party, who put the transit entry No.ICCI4TN000742314 which means that the luggage loaded by him to be delivered out of Punjab, whereas the said loaded luggage was to be delivered at Nangal which is situated within Punjab, hence his said vehicle was detained at the Nangal border, Punjab by the Sales Tax Department, Nangal being wrong transit entry. As guided by the vehicle detaining authorities i.e Sale Tax Department Nangal, the required affidavit was give by the opposite party to the said Sales Tax Department, his said vehicle was released accordingly, as the mistake was agreed by the opposite party. It is alleged that the opposite party is not rectifying the said wrong entry although Sale Tax Department, Nangal clear the entry. He is facing financial loss as his vehicle can not cross Punjab border till the wrong entry is not clear by the opposite party. On such like averments, the complainant has prayed for directing the opposite party to give a sum of Rs.20,000/- per month from 1.6.2014 till decision of the case besides compensation and litigation expenses.

2. We have carefully gone through the record and also heard the complainant in person.

3. Even if the allegations contained in the complaint are accepted to be correct, the complainant can not be termed as consumer. Complainant, in this case, is service provider and on the contrary, the opposite party hire the services of the complainant. Complainant rendered the services by transporting the goods of the opposite party in his vehicle. He is in-fact service provider. Since complainant is not consumer as such present consumer complaint is not maintainable. In our opinion the remedy of the complainant is to approach Civil Court or some other competent authority.

4. In view of above discussion, we hold that the present complaint is not maintainable and dismissed as such with no order as to cost. Copy of the order be sent to the complainant free of costs under rules. File be consigned to the record room.

Dated Parminder Sharma Jyotsna Thatai Jaspal Singh Bhatia

12.03.2015 Member Member President