West Bengal

Paschim Midnapore

CC/127/2014

Jugal Kishore Bhutra. - Complainant(s)

Versus

The D.T.D.C. Courier & Cargo Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

27 Aug 2015

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM

PASCHIM MEDINIPUR.

                             

Bibekananda Pramanik, President,

and  Kapot Chattopadhyay, Member.

   

Complaint Case No.127/2014

                                                       

                                      Jugal Kishore Bhutra……………….……Complainant.

Versus

                                The  D.T.D.C. Courier and Cargo Ltd.……..Opp. Parties.

 

              For the Complainant : Mr. Nisith Singha Mahapatra, Advocate.

              For the O.P.                : Mr. Kusal Misra, Advocate.

 

Decided on: - 27/08/2015

                               

ORDER

                          Bibekananda Pramanik, President  Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant, Jugal Kishore Bhutra, Proprietor of Krishna Marketing at Barabazar, Medinipur, dispatched five parcels (Returned/damaged goods) to Indor along with required documents e.g. challan and Form-49, through opposite party no.1, the D.T.D.C Courier and Cargo Ltd. vide docket no. D12768843 on 16/03/13.  The complainant paid sales tax of such goods. In spite of receiving those goods by opposite party no.1, the said consignee of the complainant, did not receive the aforesaid parcels.  The opposite party no.2 sent a letter dated 5/4/13 to the complainant with some illegal and unjustified claim and they illegally made a comment of defamatory in nature only for avoiding their responsibility.  The complainant gave reply of the said letter to the opposite party through their Advocate  Sri Kshitish Palmal  on 27/05/13 along with certain claim but till today opposite party did neither give any reply nor sent the said parcel to the consignee which are valued of Rs.1,96,240/-.  The complainant has suffered a loss of the said amount along with up to date bank interest and compensation.  It is stated that such act of the opposite party is purely a case of negligence. The complainant, being a bona fide consumer, has suffered loss of huge amount of money due to breakage

Contd…………..P/2

 

 

 

                                                                                  

( 2 )

 

of his business and his reputation in the business market has hampered. At present, the total business correspondence has stopped due to negligence of the opposite parties.  The complainant requested the opposite party no.1, the local fanchaise of D.T.D.C. Courier to send the parcels to the destination but they did not pay any heed.  By sending a letter, opposite party no.2 has made illegal claim on 5/4/13 for payment of sales tax but the complainant after paying sales tax sent those goods by courier and the opposite party no.2 did not intentionally  perform their duty.  Hence, the complaint, praying for an order of refund of payment of Rs.1,96,000/- with interest and payment of  Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.10,000/- as litigation cost.   

                  The opposite parties have contested this case by filling a joint written statement.  Denying and disputing the case of the complainant, it is the specific case of the opposite parties that the complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of the provision of Consumer Protection Act.  The service hired by the complainant was for commercial purpose in as much as the complainant is a proprietor of business concern.  As such, the instant complaint does not come under the purview of Consumer Protection Act.  The complainant failed to disclose the contents of the package and failed to insure the package and its contents at the time of booking.  It is stated that the complainant has not suffered any loss or injury as because the goods sent by them were admittedly Damaged goods.  The opposite parties have denied that the complainant submitted all required documents showing payment of  sales tax etc.  It is stated that the opposite parties duly and timely carried the consignee of the complainant through air along with other the consignment of many other persons but while checking by the Sales Tax department at Alipore, it was found by the department that the particular consignment of the present complainant was lacking required documents e.g. sales tax and as a result, the Sales Tax department withheld all the consignments along with the car of the opposite parties.  The opposite parties immediately contacted the complainant and requested him to provide the required documents for clearance in respect of his consignment.  In spite of that, the complainant denied to perform his duty and therefore it became an impossible task for the opposite parties to save the consignment of hundreds of other consignors due to the fault of the complainant.  A huge amount of money was claimed by the Sales Tax Department in order of keep those consignments released.  It is stated that the opposite parties had no negligence on their part and the present complaint has been filed with false allegation.  The opposite parties, therefore, claimed dismissal of the complaint.  

Contd…………..P/3

 

 

 

                                                                                 

( 3 )

 

Point for decision

                      Is the complainant entitled to get the reliefs, as sought for?     

                    

Decision with reasons

 

Admittedly, the complainant is the proprietor of Krishna Marketing and they dispatched the goods by courier through opposite party no.1 and the transaction in question was admittedly for commercial purpose.  Ld. Lawyer for the complainant submitted that they had no commercial transaction with the opposite parties and the service availed by the complainant from the opposite parties was not for commercial purpose.  As against this, it was submitted on behalf of the opposite parties that the parcels which was sent by the complainant was admittedly for business transaction and therefore the complainant cannot be said to be a consumer within the  meaning of the provision of Consumer Protection Act.  It appears that the goods which were sent by the complainant by  courier i.e. through opposite party no.1, was for commercial purpose.    Since the service appears to be availed by the complainant is for commercial purpose, so in view of section 2(1)(d)(ii), the present complaint is not maintainable and as such,  the complaint case is liable to be dismissed.                                      

                                                 Hence, it is,

                                                                   Ordered,

                                                                                  that the complaint case no.127/2014 is hereby dismissed on contest but in the circumstances without cost. 

             Dictated & Corrected by me

                              Sd/-                                            Sd/-                                             Sd/-

                          President                                    Member                                       President

                                                                                                                              District Forum

                                                                                                                          Paschim Medinipur