BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I, U.T. CHANDIGARH

========

M/s Cutways, SCO No.94, 2^nd Floor, Sector 4-C, Chandigarh through its proprietor Satish Arora.

…..Complainant

                                V E R S U S

1.     M/s Trackon Couriers Pvt. Ltd., C-143, Naraina Industrial Area, Naraina, New Delhi – 110028, through its Managing Director.

2.     M/s Shree Krishan Kirpa Enterprises, SCO No.365, 1^st Floor, Sector 44-D, Chandigarh, through its proprietor Mr.Nitin.

                                        ……Opposite Parties

CORAM:   SH.P.D.GOEL                                   PRESIDENT

                SH.RAJINDER SINGH GILL                MEMBER

Argued by:  Sh.Gaurav Bhardwaj, Counsel for the complainant.

                   Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Counsel for the OPs.

PER RAJINDER SINGH GILL, MEMBER

            Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 17.6.2011, the complainant received an order for supply of 30 Carbide Bit from Kanin (India) and the said order was prepared & invoiced vide invoice No.E-216, dated 21.6.2011 for a sum of Rs.47,316/-. The complainant packed the 30 inserts in one packet along with original invoice and recorded the details on the packet. The said packet was booked with OP No.2 for delivery and a Docket No.225902564, dated 27.6.2011 was duly handed over to the complainant. The Kanin (India) informed the complainant through e-mail dated 9.7.2011 and also through letter dated 11.7.2011 that the said packet has not been received by it till date and as such, they are not liable to pay the invoice amount. The complainant lodged a complaint with OPs through e-mail dated 8.7.2011 and also sent registered notice on 16.7.2011, which was duly replied by the OPs wherein, the OPs denied the contents of the assignment and refused to either trace out the parcel or to pay the invoice amount of the lost items.  It has been further stated that as per the tracking information of the consignment on internet, the same is showing to be reached at R.K.International at Ludhiana for delivery and the same has not been delivered to the consignee i.e. Kanin (India).  It has been further mentioned by the OPs that company will not be responsible for any complaint or loss after 60 days, but in the present case, the complaint was made by the complainant within 60 days and the said packet has not been traced till date. Hence, this complaint.

2]         OPs No.1 & 2 filed the joint reply, wherein, it took the preliminary objections with regard to the complainant is not a consumer. On merits, it has been denied that the copy of the invoice was appended to the packet. No such detail of the invoice or the contents of the packet were declared or mentioned in the courier receipt. It has been further pleaded that notice was received by the OPs and the same was duly replied in which, it was mentioned that there was no declaration by the complainant regarding the contents of the consignment at the time of booking. It has been further pleaded that as per policy of the company, in the case of declared items, the company reimburses full amount of the consignment where 1% FOV (freight on value) charges paid by the customers but in this case where contents of the consignment not disclosed and FOV charges not paid. The maximum liability for such an undeclared and uninsured consignment is four times the booking charges of the consignment. It was also brought to the notice of the complainant that it was categorically mentioned through quotation dated 1.10.2010 that no claim shall be entertained without insurance of the consignment, which was duly accepted by the complainant. It has been further pleaded that the compensation @ four times of the consignment charges were offered by the OPs vide their reply dated 22.7.2011 but the complainant chose to file the complaint. Denying all the material allegations of the complainant and pleading that there has been no deficiency in service on their part and prayer for dismissal of the complaint with costs has been made.  

3]         Parties led evidence in support of their contentions.

4]         We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.

5]         The ld.Counsel for the OPs Sh.Sajeev Sharma, Advocate, has raised an objection to the effect that the complainant is not a consumer qua OP as the complainant had hired its services purely for commercial purposes.  Thus, the complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

6]         We find merit in this objection of OPs.  Annexure C-3, is a letter sent to the Complainant Company by Kanin (India), a Ludhiana based Firm, with subject Supply of ‘Kyocera’ Make Carbide Bit, whereby the Complainant Company was ordered to supply 30 Carbide Bit.      This very document proves that the complainant deals in commercial activity being a company and as such hired the services of OP Company for commercial purposes.  Thus, the complainant company cannot be treated a “consumer” qua OP Company.

7]         Reliance has been placed on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Economic Transport Organization Vs. M/s. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr., C.A No.5611 of 2010, decided on 17.2.2010, wherein it has been held that:-

“Section 2(d) amended with effect from 15.3.2003 changing the definition of word “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”

8]         Thus, the objection raised by the ld.Counsel for OPs is sustainable and fully justified. 

9]         In view of the foregoings, we are of the firm opinion that the complainant company is not a consumer qua OP company and hence the present complaint is not maintainable under Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, this complaint stands dismissed, with no order as to costs.  The complainant is at liberty to approach any appropriate court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of her grievance, as per law. 

            Certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge.  The file be consigned.