M/s Kalsi Models           Vs.     On Dot Couriers & Cargo Ltd. & Anr.        

None has been appearing on behalf of the parties since 29.05.14.  The complaint pertains to the year 2008.  Pleadings are complete. Evidence of the parties is also complete. Therefore, we proceed to decide the complaint on merits.

          As per the averments made in the complaint the complainant  through his Proprietor has been dealing in the flying product which is being imported in India and sold to the individual and as well as to the clubs for their members who have interest to fly such aeroplane controlled by remote.  The complainant sent one flying product to a party at Ludhiana through OP No.1 on 31.05.08 and paid courier charges of Rs.944/-. However, due to the negligence of the OPs the product was badly damaged and its delivery was refused to be taken by the consignee. The OPs did not act on his complaint. Therefore, pleading deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of OPs, the complaint has been filed with the prayers to direct the OPs to pay the cost of the damaged product of Rs.19,000/-  with interest @ 18%, Rs.60,000/- towards compensation for mental agony etc. and Rs.15,000/- towards litigation and miscellaneous expenses.

Besides denying the averments made in the complaint that the product was damaged due to negligence on the part of OPs it is pleaded that on delivery the consignee had opened and inspected  the sealed parcel and then he refused to accept the same on the pretext that the goods were not as per his specification and instructed the delivery person to send the same back in the sealed condition to the complainant. It is also pleaded that the complainant had obtained the services of the OPs for commercial purposes and thus the complaint is not maintainable.

 It is very clear that the complainant had infact been doing the business on a large scale by importing the flying products from abroad and selling the same to various individuals and also to the clubs.  Therefore, the transaction in question, in our considered opinion, was of commercial nature. Hence, we hold that the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as defined in the Consumer Protection Act.  Accordingly, we dismiss the complaint. 

Let a copy of this order be sent to the parties through speed post. File be consigned to record room.

Announced on 26.04.17.