Per Shri P.N.Kashalkar – Hon’ble Presiding Judicial Member.

              This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 20/07/2010 passed by the District Consumer Forum, Pune in consumer complaint no. 330/2009.  By the said order forum below directed the O.P. to pay `36,000 to the complainant within 2 months.  Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the award granted by the forum below, Appellant/org. complainant filed this appeal. 

              According to complainant, during his transport business he had delivered certain boxes of seed to the consignee mentioned by the parties.  The said boxes were handed over to O.P. 1 & 2 for transportation.  It was alleged by the complainant that while delivering the boxes, the O.P. no. 1 & 2 delivered less boxes and as such they are deficient in service.  There was shortage of 14 boxes and the cost of each box was `15,000.  Complainant pleaded that he suffered loss of `2,10,000 for non delivery of 14 boxes and therefore he filed complaint and prayed for the recovery of `2,10,000 as well as `50,000 for mental agony and costs.

              The O.P. No. 1 & 2 contested the complaint by filing written statement.  In the said written statement he specifically mentioned that there was no contract between the O.P. and the complainant about the alleged transaction.  Hence the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act are not attracting in the case.  He pleaded that in the course of transaction the ropes tied to the said truck had broken and in the process some boxes were broken.  Therefore the O.P’s are not liable to pay any compensation.

              While deciding the case following issue was taken into consideration by the forum below.  Issue no. 1 was whether the complainant was consumer of O.P. no. 1 & 2 and issue no. 2 was whether O.P. has given defective service to the complainant.  Forum below answered in the affirmative on both issues.  Therefore the forum below directed the O.P. to pay `36,000 to the complainant.  As such original complainant filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of award passed by the forum below.

              We heard both the advocates. 

              Adv. Prabhawalkar stated that this appellant’s consumer case is not maintainable in Forum below.   He also stated that the alleged transaction of the complainant was for his transport business and for commercial purpose. Person having transport business for a commercial purpose is not covered within the preview of Consumer Protection Act 1986 and he can not file consumer complaint because his business was carried for commercial purpose.  On this ground the appellant is not consumer u/s 2(i)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 

              Appellant filed this appeal for enhancement of award. But we find that since appellant is not consumer within the meaning of Sec. 2(i)(d) of C.P.Act, 1986.   We summarily reject the appeal and pass the following order.

-: ORDER :-

                        1.       Appeal stands summarily rejected.

2.          No order as to cost.

3.          Copies be furnished to the parties 

Pronounced

Dated 02 December 2010