These two Revision Petitions, preferred by the complainants are directed against a common order, dated 01.06.2011, passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Union Territory, Chandigarh ( for short, “the State Commission”) in Appeal nos. 06 and 07 of 2010. By the impugned common order, the State Commission has affirmed the order dated 08.12.2009, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum I, Union Territory Chandigarh (for short, “the District Forum”), dismissing the complaints filed by the petitioners against the Respondents/carriers for compensation on account of non-delivery of consignment of chemicals and instruments booked with them from Chandigarh for delivery at destination in Jammu and Kashmir. The complaints have been dismissed mainly on the grounds that (i)  before filing the complaints, the petitioners had not issued a notice, as stipulated under section 10 of the Carrier’s Act 1865, and (ii) after the amendment in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (for short, “the Act”) with effect from 15.03.2003, the petitioners were not “consumers” and therefore, the complaints under the Act were not maintainable.

        Since both the Revision Petitions arise out of a common order these are being disposed of by this order.

        We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We are of the view that in light of the decision of a Constitution Bench decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Economic Transport Organisation, Delhi vs Charan Spinning Mills Private Limited and Another - (2010) 4 SCC 114, the Revision Petitions must fail, as admittedly the “services” of the Respondents were availed of by the complainant for commerical purpose. Explaining the purport and effect of the aforestated amendment, the Supreme Court, opined thus:

“52.   We may also notice that Section 2 (1)(d) of the Act was amended by the Amendment Act 62 of 2002 with effect from 15.03.2003, 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 the carrier had been availed of 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”.

        In light of the above authoritative pronouncement, no fault can be found with the impugned order, wherein, it has been held that since the petitioner had availed of the services of the respondent carrier for commercial purpose, it could not be treated as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of the Act. We hold accordingly.

        For the view we have taken above, we deem it unnecessary to deal with the question relating to Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865.

 Accordingly, both the Revision Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.