IN THE COURT OF THE DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION,CUTTACK.

                                       C.C.No.75/2022

M/s. Mahaveer Enterprisers,

Through its Proprietor Santosh Kumar Mishra,

At;Bishram Nagar,PO:Arunodaya Market,

P.S:Madhupatna,Dist:Cuttack,Odisha.                                                        ... Complainant.

                                                Vrs.

1.        S.D.C Agro Vet (India) Pvt. Ltd.,

103/104 SDC House,

D No.12-13-19,Tara Tycon

Taranaka,Secunderabad,Pin-500017.

2.        The Manager,Head Offices,

VRL Logistics Ltd.,

Giriraj Annex Circuit House Road,

Hubbali,Karnataka-580029,

Branch Office VRL Logistic Ltd.,

Plot ZNo.2073/74,Mahatab Road,

Near Old J.M.G Hero Honda Showroom

Infront of M/s. Sampatrai and sons,

Chatrabazar,Cuttakc,Odisha.                                                        ... Opp. Parties.

Present:               Sri Debasish Nayak,President.

                                Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

Date of filing:     22.04.2022

Date of Order:   10.10.2022

For the complainant:          Mr. R.R.Rout,Adv. & Associates.

For the O.Ps  :                       None.

Sri Sibananda Mohanty,Member.

            Case of the complainant in short is that he is a businessman of Cuttack town and deals with Agro feeds being the proprietor of M/s. Mahaveer Enterprisers at Bishram Nagar  at Cuttack.  The complainant alleged that he had purchased 40 packets of poultry feeds supplements from the O.P No.1 on payment of Rs.2,80,000/-.  The weight of the said product in total was 1000 Kg.  The complainant contacted the O.P No.2 who is a transport organization for carrying those feeds to his place at Cuttack.  The O.P No.2 charged a sum of Rs.5,253/- for transportation of the said product as well as Rs.147/- towards local charges from Hyderabad to Cuttack.  After delivery of the said product, the complainant found that 7 packets of feeds are damaged due to negligence of the O.P No.2 during the  transportation.  So the complainant initially refused to receive the said feeds but the O.P No.2 assured the complainant that the cost of the said damaged feeds would be borne by him.  The complainant only received 33 bags of poultry feeds.  But lateron, the O.P No.2 refused to compensate the complainant.  The complainant on 4.12.21 issued a legal notice to the O.P no.2 claiming the compensation to the tune of Rs.49,000/- towards his damaged feeds, which is caused by the O.P no.2 for his negligent act during the  transportation. The O.P no.2 gave a reply to such notice on 12.1.22 to the said notice and denied the allegation of the complainant.  It was alleged by the O.P No.2 that the packaging of the feeds were done by the O.P no.1 in  plastic bags,  which were not properly packed and were vulnerable to transit damage and thereby he refuted his liability.  Hence, the complainant has filed the present case with a prayer for direction to the O.P No.2 to pay a sum of Rs.49,000/- towards the cost of poultry feeds and a sum of Rs.1,05,000/- towards the compensation  as well as Rs.15,000/- towards litigation expenses.

            The complainant in order to prove his case has filed xerox copy of certain documents.

2.         Both the O.Ps did not file any written version, hence, they were set exparte.

3.         Keeping in mind the averments as made by the complainant in his complaint petition, this Commission feels it proper to settle the following points in order to arrive at a proper conclusion in the present case.

            i.          Whether the complainant is a consumer under the C.P.Act ?

ii.         Whether the case of the complainant is maintainable?

            iii.        Whether there was any deficiency in service on the part of O.Ps?

            iv.        Whether the complainant is entitled to the reliefs as claimed by him?

Points no.i & ii

            The complainant himself has admitted in his complaint petition that he is a businessman and deals with Agro feeds being the proprietor of M/s. Mahaveer Enterprises at Bishramnagar,Cuttack.  The complaint petition itself reveals that the complainant hired service of the O.Ps for commercial purposes.  Thus, the complainant is not coming under the definition of the consumer as per the C.P.Act,2019.  Hence, it is held that the complainant is not a consumer and the case is not maintainable.  Accordingly, these two points are answered against the complainant.

Issues no.iii & iv.

            In view of the above findings, this Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the present case.  Hence the question of deficiency of service on the part of O.Ps does not arise and the complainant is also not entitled to any of the reliefs.  Hence it is so ordered;

                                                            ORDER

            The case is dismissed exparte against O.Ps and as regards to the facts and circumstances of the case without any cost.

Order pronounced in the open court on the 10^th day of   October,2022 under the seal and signature of this Commission.           

                                                                                                                                      Sri Sibananda Mohanty

                                                                                                             Member

                                                                                                    Sri Debasish Nayak

                                                                                                               President