ORDER BELOW EXHIBIT 1.
PER SHRI. S.B.DHUMAL - HON’BLE PRESIDENT :
1) Heard Ld.Advocate for the Complainant regarding admissibility of the complaint.
2) It is the case of the Complainant that the Complainant is a Division of Nova Oleochem Ltd., a Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and it is carrying on business of manufacture of chemicals, oils and allied products. The Complainant had received an order from one M/s. Megha Vitrified Pvt. Ltd., for delivery of 500 Kgs. Cobalt Carbonate. The Complainant accepted the order and on 21/04/2011 delivered the said goods packed in blue colour HDPE drums with metal seals at the godown of Opposite Party who is a fleet owner and transport contractor for delivery of the said consignment to the consignee. Opposite Party had booked the consignment for its transport and issued consignment note in favour of the Complainant. According to the Complainant, even though, the consigned goods were delivered to the Opposite Party on 11/04/2011, the said goods were not delivered to the consignee for a considerable period of time. Therefore, the Complainant made enquiry with the Opposite Party and that time it was informed by the Opposite Party that the truck carrying the said goods caught fire and the consigned goods were destroyed. Therefore, the Complainant has filed this complaint claiming compensation alleging deficiency of service on the part of Opposite Party.
3) By the Amendment of 62/2002 Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) of Consumer ProtectionAct,1986, was amended and by the said amendment the person who avails such services for any commercial purpose is excluded from the definition of ‘Consumer’.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Economic Transport Organization V/s. M/s.Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. In judgement para no.25 have clearly stated that -
“We may also notice that Sec.2(d) of the Act was amended by amendment Act, 62/2002 with effect from 15/03/03 by adding the words “but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose” in the definition of Consumer. After the said amendment, if the services of the carrier had been availed for any commercial purpose, then the person availing the services will not be a “Consumers” and consequently, complaints will not be maintainable in such cases.”
4) From the facts narrated in the complaint, it is clear that after amendment of Sec.2(1)(d)(ii) which came into effect from 15/03/2003, the Complainant in the month of April, 2011 availed services of the Opposite Party for commercial purpose and therefore, the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined under Sec. 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Hence, present complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost.
