Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

CC/15/2015

.Selvam,Proprietor,M/s.Everbrisht Industries, - Complainant(s)

Versus

M/s.K.P.N.Speed Parcel Services Pvt Ltd., Rep by its Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

U.T.Narendran-com

15 Jun 2017

ORDER

 

                                                            Complaint presented on:  12.01.2015

                                                                Order pronounced on:  15.06.2017

 

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (NORTH)

    2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C.Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU.K.JAYABALAN, B.Sc., B.L.,        PRESIDENT

                    TMT.T.KALAIYARASI, B.A.B.L.,           MEMBER II

 

THURSDAY THE 15^th   DAY OF JUNE 2017

 

C.C.NO.15/2015

 

 

C.Selvam,

Proprietor,

M/s. Everbright Industries,

No.84, Sydenham’s Road,

Periyamedu, Chennai – 600 007.

                                                                                     ….. Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

M/s.K.P.N.Speed Parcel Service Private Limited,

Rep by its Manager,

No.118/1, Near Veterinary College,

Vepery High Road,

Chennai – 600 007

.....Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                 : 20.01.2015

Counsel for Complainant                      : V.T.Narendiran & P.K.Rajangam

Counsel for    Opposite Party                   : Ms.R.Dhanalakshmi     

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

BY PRESIDENT THIRU. K.JAYABALAN B.Sc., B.L.,

          This complaint is filed by the complainant to refund the value of goods of Rs.8,000/- and also service charges of Rs.150/- and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is running business in the name of M/s Everbright Industries and he had booked a parcel containing Belt, Shoe etc on 17.03.2014 with the Opposite Party to be delivered at Runner Sports Centre, Opposite to collector office, Thiruvannamalai. The   Complainant also paid a sum of Rs.150/- as charges to the Opposite Party for the consignment. Even after 3 days the consignment was not delivered to the addressee, the Complainant contacted the Opposite Party about non delivery of the consignment. The Opposite Party had not given proper answer. Hence the Complainant issued a legal notice dated 28.11.2014 to the Opposite Party and the same was received by him on 03.12.2014. Even after receipt of notice the Opposite Party had delivered the consignment to the consignee or to the Complainant. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint for the deficiency committed by the Opposite Party to refund the value of goods of Rs.8,000/- and also service charges of Rs.150/- and compensation for mental agony with cost of the Complaint.

 

 

2. WRITTEN VERSION OF THE  OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant booked a consignment is “To Pay Booking” and he had not paid the charges of Rs.150/-. Further the Complainant company is represented only by Mr.Kaleem is the Proprietor and not this Complainant as Mr.Selvam. Further, the Complainant Company is carrying on business and therefore the Complainant cannot be considered as a consumer. The Opposite Party denies that the Complainant sent the goods to the value of Rs.50,000/-. The other averments made in the Complaint are denied. As the Complainant is not a Consumer, the Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint with costs.

3. POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party?

          2. Whether the complainant is entitled to any relief? If so to what extent?

4. POINT NO :1 

          The case of the Complainant is that he had booked a parcel containing Belt, Shoe etc with the Opposite Party and the Opposite Party also issued Ex.A1 receipt for such booking and the said consignment was not delivered even after three days to the consignee at Runner Sports Centre, Opposite to collectors office at Thiruvannamalai and hence the Complainant approached the Opposite Party    about the non delivery of the consignment and however the Opposite Party did not give any proper reply whenever contacted by the him and hence the Complainant issued Ex.A3 letter for non delivery of consignment and the said notice was received under Ex.A4 acknowledgement by the Opposite Party and therefore the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service even after receipt of charges of Rs.150/- for their service.

          5. Admittedly the Opposite Party issued Ex.A1 receipt for booking the consignment by the Complainant. The Opposite Party raised two objections

(i) that the Complainant company M/s Everbright Industries Proprietor is not Mr.Selvam as shown in the Complaint and   only Mr.Kaleem is the proprietor of the company as shows in Ex.B1 and therefore the Complaint filed by a wrong person Mr.C.Selvam is not maintainable and

(ii) admittedly the Complainant was doing business transactions and therefore he cannot be regarded as a Consumer and therefore for the above reasons the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

6. Admittedly the Complaint is filed by one C.Selvam as stated by the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Party raised objection in the written version itself that the proprietor of the Complainant is not Mr.Selvam and only Mr.S.Kaleem. Though the Complainant stated in his proof affidavit that Mr.S.Kaleem is the employee of Mr.C.Selvam and he is the owner of M/s Everbright Industries and to prove the same Mr.C.Selvam is the owner Mr.S.Kaleem is the employee of the Complainant company no documents has been filed by him. On the other hand Ex.B1 document shows that Mr.S.Kaleem is the proprietor of Complainant Company Everbright Industries. Therefore the objection raised by the Opposite Party is accepted that Mr. C.Selvam is the proprietor of the Everbright Industries has not been proved by him.

7.   The Complainant pleaded in his Complaint that the parcel consists of his business related goods and the said goods were very essential for his business. The Opposite Party raised objective in his written version that the Complainant cannot be  considered as a Consumer, since he is carrying of business. After filing the written version only the Complainant filed his proof affidavit. Nowhere in his proof affidavit he had stated that how he will become a Consumer that when he admittedly carrying on business. Therefore for the forgoing discussions above the Complainant cannot be considered as a Consumer and therefore, it is held that the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service to the Complainant.

08. POINT NO:2

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service, the Complainant is not entitled for any relief and the Complaint is liable to be dismissed.

          In the result the Complaint is dismissed. No costs.

          Dictated to the Steno-Typist transcribed and typed by her corrected and pronounced by us on this 15^th day of June 2017.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 17.03.2014                   Courier Receipt

Ex.A2 dated 17.03.2014                   Invoices

Ex.A3 dated 28.11.2014                   Notice to respondent

Ex.A4 dated 03.12.2014                   Acknowledgement card

 

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTY :

 

Ex.B1 dated NIL                     Ever bright Industries

 

 

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT