Tamil Nadu

North Chennai

88/2013

Falcon Marketing rep. by its Proprietor,M.Shahul Hameed, - Complainant(s)

Versus

Parveen Travels, rep. by its Manager, - Opp.Party(s)

M/s.K.Mohamed Ismail

20 Oct 2016

ORDER

                                                            Complaint presented on:  12.04.2013

                                                                Order pronounced on:  20.10.2016

 

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 20^th   DAY OF OCTOBER 2016

 

C.C.NO.88/2013

 

Falcon Marketing,

Rep by its Proprietor,

Mr.M.Shahul Hameed,

No.68/289, Linghi Chetty Street,

Mannady, Chennai – 600 001.

                                                                                         ..... Complainant

 

..Vs..

 

Parveen Express,

Rep by its Manager,

Old No.259, Linghi Chetty Street,

Manady, Chennai – 600 001.

	...Opposite Party

Date of complaint                                  : 15.04.2013

Counsel for Complainant                      : M/s.K.Mohamed Ismail

Counsel for Opposite Party                  : M/s.G.Perumal

 

 

 

 

 

 

O R D E R

 

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

 

          This complaint is filed by the complainant u/s 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.1986.

1.THE COMPLAINT IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant is doing the business of Air Conditioner, Refrigeration and other electronic goods in the name and style of Falcon Marketing. Further the Opposite Party is a transportation agency doing the business in the name and style of  Parveen Express. The Complainant had booked a parcel in the Opposite Party office on 02.01.2012 under Reference No.CMDY 1598 and a sum of Rs.120/- had been paid by the Complainant to the Opposite Party towards the service charges. The said parcel contained 4 nos. of Adily Induction Stove, each cost to Rs.2,137/- and totally valued at Rs.10,000/- including VAT amount of Rs.1,452/- The said parcel has to be delivered Mr.Bhaahrudeen at No.32/256, Vaadi Vasal Vaikale Karai Street, Thanjavur – 1. The Opposite Party promised to deliver the parcel on the next day i.e. on 03.01.2012 but the said parcel has not been delivered as promised. Therefore the Complainant had contacted the Opposite Party in this regard who have once again assured the Complainant that the parcel would be delivered within two days. The parcel was not delivered even after that. In this regard the Complainant had given a Complaint to the Opposite Party on 24.01.2012. The above act of non delivery of the goods amounts to Deficiency in Service. There was a loss of business to the Complainant and also the damages worth about Rs.50,000/- had incurred to the Complainant. The Opposite Party has not kept the promise of delivering the parcel even after more than 14 months. Therefore the Complainant has caused a legal notice dated 08.03.2013 and there was no reply from him. Hence the Complainant filed this Complaint to pass an order towards the service charges of Rs.120/-,  invoice bill amount of Rs.10,000/- and damages with cost of the Complaint.

2. WRITTERN VERSION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY IN BRIEF:

          The Complainant had booked the consignment in the course of his business activity and thus it squarely falls under the “Commercial Purpose” category thereby not attracting the provisions of Consumer Protection Act of 1986. The Complaint alleges that a sum of Rs.120/- was paid for transporting the said goods, whereas the way bill (Document-2) clearly denotes that it was a “To-pay” transaction and thus the Complainant had not paid any charges for the transport of the same.    The Complainant while booking the goods had not divulged the information is regarding the description of the goods and value of the same, thus leading to the inescapable position that he had not approached the Hon’ble Forum with clean hands. The Complainant had not declared the value of the goods at the time of booking vide way bill dated 02.01.2012 and further submitted that, had the Goods consigned were of high value, the Complainant would have definitely insured the said consignment and the Opposite Parties also would have insisted on such insurance if the said value had been declared. The quantum of compensation claimed i.e., Rs.50,000/- in respect of goods self valued at Rs.10,000/- itself depicts the greed and avariciousness of the Complainant. Hence this Opposite Party prays to dismiss the Complaint with cost.

 

 

 

3.POINTS FOR CONSIDERATION:

          1.Whether the Complaint is a Consumer?

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

          3. Whether the complaint is entitled to any relief? If so to what relief?

4.POINT : 1

          The Complainant is doing the business of Air Conditioner Refrigerator and other electronic goods in the name and style of Falcon Marketing. Ex.A1 is the invoice issued by the Complainant and as per the said invoice the Complainant is carrying on business of Home Appliances as per Ex.A1 invoice is also paying sales tax and registered with the sales tax authority and the allotment number of the sales tax also printed in the Ex.A1 invoice. Therefore as pleaded by the Complainant and from Ex.A1 invoice issued by the Complainant proves that the Complainant is carrying on home appliances business for profit, hence the Complainant cannot be considered as a Consumer as per the provision of the CP Act.

5. POINT NO:2

          According to the Complainant he had booked a parcel in the Opposite Party office on 02.01.2012 under Ex.A2 receipt containing four Adily Induction Stoves for  Rs.10,000/- including VAT to be delivered at Thanjavur and the Opposite Party  assured that it would be delivered on the next day  on 03.01.2012 and the same was not delivered and therefore the Opposite Party committed Deficiency in Service.

          6. The Opposite Party would contend that he was not paid the service charges under Ex.A2 and it is only To-pay transactions and further during the pendency of the case matter has been settled and the Complainant received a sum of Rs.22,000/- towards final settlement and issued a document signed by the Complainant in  20 rupees stamp paper and the said document filed by the Opposite Party counsel  with memo during the course of the oral arguments. However there is no representation for the Complainant today to rebut such arguments. The oral arguments of the Complainant closed since it is posted today as last chance. The document filed with memo today containing seal and signature of the Complainant as signed in the Complaint. Therefore as contended by the Opposite Party counsel the case is settled between the Complainant and the Opposite Party is accepted. Further in point: 1 it is held that the Complainant is not a Consumer and in view of the same, we hold that the Opposite Party has not committed any Deficiency in Service and accordingly this point is answered.

7 .POINT NO :3

Since the Opposite Party has not committed any deficiency in service, the complainant is not entitled for any relief as prayed in the complainant 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 20^th day of October 2016.

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE COMPLAINANT:

Ex.A1 dated 01.01.2012                   Invoice Raised by the Complainant

Ex.A2 dated 02.01.2012                   Receipt of service charges

Ex.A3 dated 08.03.2013                   Legal Notice

Ex.A4 dated 09.03.2013                   Acknowledgement Card

 

LIST OF DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE  OPPOSITE PARTY:

                             ………NIL……..

 

 

MEMBER – II                                                               PRESIDENT