Andhra Pradesh

East Godwari-II at Rajahmundry

CC/62/2015

M/S. Maruthi Agencies, Rep. by its Proprietor. Suresh Katreddy - Complainant(s)

Versus

Navata Road Transport, Rajahmundry Office - Opp.Party(s)

P.V.S.K.Shobandri Satry

13 Jul 2016

ORDER

                                                                                                Date of filing:   01.10.2015

                                                                                                Date of Order: 13.07.2016

 

BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER FORUM-II, EAST GODAVARI

DISTRICT AT RAJAHMUNDRY

 

                        PRESENT:   Smt H.V. Ramana, B.Com., L.L.M.,   PRESIDENT(FAC)

                      Sri A. Madhusudana Rao, M.Com., B.L., MEMBER          

    

            Wednesday, the 13^th day of July, 2016

 

 

C.C.No.62 /2015

Between:-

 

M/s. Maruthi Agencies, Rep. by Prop. Suresh Katreddy,

S/o.K.L. Narasimha Rao, aged 40 years, LB Shastry Road,

Ramakrishnarao peta, Rajahmundry, E.G. District.                                     …        Complainant

 

                                    And

 

1)  Navata Road Transport, Rajahmundry office,

     Mangalavarapupeta, Rajahmundry.

 

2)  Navata Road Transport, Machilipatnam Branch,

     Machilipatnam, Krishna District.

 

3)  Navata Road Transport, Head office, P.B.No.912,

     Bose Building, Kanuru, Vijayawada.                                                   …        Opposite parties

 

 

            This case coming on 01.07.2016 for final hearing before this Forum in the presence of Sri P.V.S.K. Sobhanadri Sastry, Advocate for the complainant and Sri M.R. Satya Sai, Advocate for the opposite parties, and having stood over till this date for consideration, this Forum has pronounced the following:  

 

O R D E R

[Per Sri A. Madhusudhana Rao, Member] 

This is a complaint filed by the complainant U/Sec.12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 to direct the opposite parties to pay Rs.25,256-56ps and interest at 24% p.a. towards the negligent acts; pay Rs.5,000/- towards expenses and pay interest at 24% p.a. from 14.8.2015 (date of advocate notice) till date of payment.

2.         The case of the complainant is that he booked consignment dt.26.5.2015 in No.37389 and consigned oil buckets in 14 Nos. and the value of the stock consigned was Rs.25,256-56ps and the goods are consigned to Siva Sai Auto Agencies, Machilipatnam and the goods are consigned through the 1^st opposite party. The 3^rd opposite party is the Head office and further, the 2^nd opposite party is the branch to which the goods are consigned. The goods consigned are spoiled during transit. Now that it has come to light that out of the 14 buckets, the 11 buckets are damaged due to deficiency in service in transit, when the consignee refused to take delivery of the consigned goods and addressed a letter dt.31.5.2015 stating that the oils consigned was damaged by the opposite parties and the consignee refused to take damage oil which was in the office of the 2^nd opposite party. The damaged to the oil was caused due to mishandling or deficient way of handling the consigned goods by the opposite parties. The complainant finally on 14.8.2015, the complainant demanded through their advocate about the value of goods damaged at Rs.25,256-56ps and anticipating action from the complainant, the 3^rd opposite party got issued a letter dt.6.8.2015 stating that as if the goods are not taken delivery by the consignee and for the notice dt.14.8.2015, the 3^rd opposite party got issued a reply dt.20.8.2015 without denying the allegations set out in the notice dt.14.8.2015. The opposite parties are not paying the amount. Hence, the complaint.

3.         The 1^st opposite party filed its written version and the same was adopted by the 2^nd & 3^rd opposite parties and denied all the allegations made by the complainant. This opposite party submits that the complaint is not maintainable under law before this Forum since the transaction between the parties is relating to commercial one and therefore, no complaint is maintainable in respect of commercial transaction. The complainant booked a consignment containing 11 articles but not 14 articles as alleged by the complainant and out of 11 articles 10 buckets of lubricant oils are there and after the consignment received the destination neither the complainant nor the consignee take delivery of the goods inspite of the opposite parties addressing letters and oral requests from time to time and later the opposite parties issued a letter under Regd. post with ack. due on 20.8.2015 and inspite of receipt of the said letter neither complainant nor consignee take delivery of the goods for the reasons best know to them. In fact the consignment booked is not impaired. The consignment booked is in respect of commercial transaction and in the course of business even according to the case of the complainant, this complaint is not maintainable before this Forum and this Hon’ble Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint. As per the consignment booked the value of the goods far less than the value shown in the complaint. The complainant quoted exaggerated figures to get more damages. After the amendment to the act in the year 2002 the definition of consumer was amended and in pursuance of such definition any commercial transaction is excluded from the purview of the consumer protection act. Since the consignment is made in connection with the business between the complainant and consignee the case on hand cannot come under the purview of this Hon’ble Forum. There is no deficiency on the part of the opposite parties nor opposite parties are responsible for the alleged damage to the goods. Therefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

4.         The proof affidavit filed on behalf of the complainant and Exs.A1 to A6 have been marked for the complainant. The proof affidavit filed on behalf of the 1^st opposite party and Exs.B1 to B3 have been marked for the opposite parties.

5.         Heard both sides. Written arguments filed on behalf of the complainant.

6.         Points raised for consideration are:

 

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

            2. Whether the complainant is entitled for the reliefs asked for?

            3. To what relief?

         

         

7.  POINT Nos.1 & 2:   As per the available record, the complainant herein engaged an oil business under the name and style of Maruthi Agencies, Rajahmundry and in the usual course of business, booked consignment dt.26.5.2015 vide Receipt No.37389 containing 14 Nos. of oil buckets worth Rs.25,256.56ps to one Siva Sai Auto Agencies, Machilipatnam through the 1^st opposite party to be delivered at the destination through the 2^nd opposite party and the complainant paid an amount of Rs.238/- towards transportation charges to the 1^st opposite party as per Ex.A1 = Ex.B2, in which it was noted as 11 buckets whereas the actual transaction was for 14 buckets as per Ex.A3 tax invoice dt.26.5.2015. The 3^rd opposite party is the head office of the 1^st & 2^nd opposite parties. It is observed that when the Siva Sai Auto Agencies, Machilipatnam approached the 2^nd opposite party herein, they found that 11 buckets of oil was damaged out of 14 buckets transported through the 1^st opposite party as per the letter dt.31.5.2015 addressed to the complainant vide Ex.A2. We further observed that as the said Lub oil under way bill No.37389-11 dated 26.5.2015 from Rajahmundry to Machilipatnam was not taken delivery, the 2^nd opposite party issued notice dt.6.8.2015 to the complainant as the consignment was arrived on 28.5.2015 and lying in their branch and the demurrage will be levied from 12.6.2015 onwards and the delivery is not taken within 15 days from the date of receipt of notice, the consignment will be transferred to their lost property depot at Vijayawada and will be sold in public auction without further intimation as per Ex.A4.

On that, the complainant got issued legal notice to all the opposite parties demanding the entire value of consignment i.e. Rs.25,256.56ps with interest from 1.6.2015 onwards within seven days after receipt of the notice vide Ex.A5 dated 14.8.2015 and received reply vide Ex.A6 dated 20.8.2015 stating that the consignment preferred containing only 11 articles including 10 buckets of lubricant oil and they have informed the consignee Sri Siva Sai Auto Agencies, Machilipatnam to take delivery of the same from time to time including notice dt.13.8.2015. The opposite parties were represented by one Mr. P.V.S. Simhachalam, Assistant Manager, Operations, Rajahmundry was authorized by the opposite parties as per Ex.B1 authorization letter dt.23.12.2015. Ex.B3 is the photos filed by the opposite parties said to be taken at their 2^nd opposite party branch of Machilipatnam showing both sides of the buckets that there was no damage caused to the oil buckets consigned from Rajahmundry to Machilipatnam through their transport services.

It is observed that the main contention of the opposite parties is that the consignment contained 11 articles only and neither the complainant nor the consignee take delivery of the goods inspite of addressing letters and oral requests from time to time and this opposite parties issued letter under registered post dt.20.8.2015 and both of them failed to take delivery of the consigned goods is not impaired. The opposite parties further contention that the consignment is a commercial transaction. In the course of business and the same is excluded from purview of the Consumer Protection Act after amendment of the Act in 2002. Further, the opposite parties contended that the value of the consignment quoted is exaggerated to get more damages.

We observed that the value of the consignment is Rs.25,257/- as per Ex.A1, Ex.A3 and Ex.B2 original receipt issued by the 1^st opposite party branch. Further, even as per Ex.B3 photos filed by the opposite parties which clearly shows that there were 14 buckets in all kept intact. So, it is clear that the complainant booked consignment for 14 buckets of lubricant oil were worth of Rs.25,257/- and there is no dispute in this regard.

It is further observed that the complainant stated himself that he was engaged in oil business in the name and style of Maruthi Agencies authorized distributor, Motul Lubricants, East Godavari District vide Tin No.37659160586 under Ex.A3 and the consignee was Siva Sai Auto Agencies, Machilipatnam is also a engine oil shopee vide Tin No.28525983428 under Ex.A2 clearly showed that both the complainant and the consignee at Machilipatnam are doing oil business and the above said consignment was made during the course of their business transaction through the opposite parties. Whereas the complainant alleged that the transaction between the consignor/complainant and the opposite parties is not commercial transaction and the transaction between the complainant and the opposite parties is availing and rendering of transport services and so, the opposite parties expected to be diligent, careful and responsible while discharging their duty as carriers or transporters.          

           The opposite parties relied on the following judgment in Economic Transport Organization Vs. Charan Spinning Mills (P) Ltd., and another: 2010(3) ALD 58 (SC), in which the Hon’ble Apex Court discussed about Consumer Protection Act, Section 2(1)(d) (as Amended by Act 62 of 2002 w.e.f. 15.3.2003) meaning and scope of consumer “person availing services for commercial purpose will not be a consumer citing an earlier judgment of 2000 (4) SCC 91 and held that we may also notice that Section 2(d) of Act was amended by Amendment Act 62 of 2002 with effect from 15.3.2003, 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 service of 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. But the said amendment will not apply to complaints filed before the amendment.

            With the above said discussion and after going through the Hon’ble Apex court judgments, we are in the considered opinion that the services of the opposite parties availed by the complainant is for commercial purpose and so, the complaint is liable to be dismissed as this Forum sans jurisdiction to entertain such complaints.  

 

8.   POINT No.3:  In the result, the complaint is dismissed, without costs.

 

Typed to dictation, corrected and pronounced by us in open Forum, on this the 13^th day of July, 2016.

    

                    Sd/-                                                                                        Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)

 

 

 

 

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

WITNESSES EXAMINED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT: None.                                         FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES: None.

 

DOCUMENTS MARKED

 

FOR COMPLAINANT:

 

 

 

Ex.A1    Bill dt.26.5.2015 consignee booked by Siva Sai Auto Agencies.

Ex.A2    Letter dt.31.5.2015 addressed by consignee to the complainant.

Ex.A3    Transport bill dt.26.5.2015 issued by Navata Road Transport.

Ex.A4    Letter dt.6.8.2015 issued by the opposite parties.

Ex.A5    Notice dt.14.8.2015 issued by the complainant through Advocate.

Ex.A6    Reply notice dt.20.8.2015 issued by Navata Road Transport.

 

 

 

FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES:-

 

Ex.B1    Letter of authorization dt.23.12.2015 issued by the opposite party.

Ex.B2    Copy of L.R. (consignee copy) dated 26.5.2015.

Ex.B3    2 Nos. Photographs.

 

 

                  Sd/-                                                                                                Sd/-

              MEMBER                                                                              PRESIDENT(FAC)