THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM, KOZHIKODE.
I.A.53/2016 in C.C.420/2011
Dated this the 11th day of April, 2016
(Smt. Rose Jose, B.Sc, LLB. : President)
Smt.Beena Joseph, M.A : Member
Sri. Joseph Mathew, MA, LLB : Member
ORDER
Present: Rose Jose, President:
Original petition is filed under Section 12 of C.P.Act.1986. Here the complainant Mr.Zibin Ali Hassan Director, Malabar Watches Pvt Ltd. is a whole sale dealer of different watch companies and doing business for a long period and the opposite parties are the courier services centers named “On Dot couriers. Here the complainant booked a consignment through the opposite parties it was mistakenly handed over to another party and after that the petitioner received the consignment as tampered and some watches were also lost from the consignment. Complainant informed the opposite parties about his loss and asked him to make arrangements to get back his losted watches., but even after repeated demands and requests Opposite Parties have not make any steps to consolidate the petitioner . Hence he filed this petition against the deficiency in service of the Opposite Party and for getting reliefs.
In this case the opposite parties entered in appearance and filed a maintainability petition challenging the competency of the complainant to file this complaint. Their case is as follows.
This complaint is filed by M/s.Malabar Watches Pvt Ltd. which is a commercial establishment and it will not come under the definition of Consumer . As per the Consumer Protection Act 1986 and they filed an I.A.153/16 questioning the maintainability of the petition. According to them the petitioner is engaged in the business activities and that is commercial in nature ie. complainant used to purchase and sale different company watches . Opposite party contended that the petition itself he admitted that he is a wholesale dealer of watches. As per section 2(1) d commercial purpose is excluded from the purview of this Forums. Hence Opposite Party prayed to allow this I.A.153/16 and to dismiss the petition with cost.
At this stage, where the main points to be decided is question of maintainability. On perusal of documents and hearing of both sides it is found that the consignment entrusted with the Opposite Party is with a purpose of resale for earning profit and is commercial in nature and so the petitioner is not a consumer as envisaged under section 2(1)d of Consumer Protection Act. More over there is no case or pleadings that the purchase and sale of watches are for earning his livelihood by means of self employment. More over complainant has clearly stated before us that he is a whole sale dealer of different company watches.
In view of the facts stated above and as per the purview of Consumer Protection Act 1986 we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not a consumer and hence this petition is not maintainable before this Forum. So we are not going to the merits of this petition.
In the result the I.A is allowed and the original petition is dismissed as not maintainable. The petitioner can approach the proper forum having authority to hear and decide this matter if he wants so. No order as to cost.
Dated this the11th day of April 2016.
Date of filing: 27.10.2011.
SD/-MEMBER SD/-PRESIDENT SD/- MEMBER
//True copy//
(Forwarded/By Order)
SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT
