O R D E R
SUBHASH GUPTA, MEMBER
The complainant has filed the present complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 hereinafter to be referred as the ‘Act’ against the Opposite Party, hereinafter to be called as OP. The complainant has filed the present complaint on the grounds that he has booked some articles with the OP for delivery to one Inder Bhushan, Kahalgaon, Bihar on 6.9.2014. It is alleged that he paid Rs.1785/- at the time of booking of parcel. It is alleged that the said goods were purchased from Haryana Tractor(India) whose employee also accompanied him to the office of OP. It is pleaded that at the time of booking he was assured that the three parcels will be delivered within 7 days. As the parcels did not reach the destination, on enquiry it was revealed that the parcels have been lost. It has been pleaded that the loss has been caused by the OP as it has failed to deliver the parcel to his relatives. It has been pleaded that all efforts were made with the Representative of OP but he failed to resolve the issue. Vide the present complaint the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs.48,800/- which was the value of the goods purchased from the Haryana Tractor(India).
2. Notice of the complaint was issued to the OP which despite service did not appear and accordingly vide order dated 3.11.2015 was proceeded ex-parte. The complainant in support of his case has filed parcel booking receipt issued by the OP, cashmemo issued by Haryana Tractor(India), cashmemo issued by American Automobile Diesel Services for repair of a pump and a copy of letter written by Haryana Tractor(India) to the OP for needful action in the matter.
3. We have gone through the complaint of the complainant and the documents i.e. courier receipts issued by OP which indicates that the consignor was Haryana Tractor(India) and consignee was one Inder Bhushan. The cashmemo issued by the Haryana Tractor(India) dated 6.9.2014 is also in the name of Inder Bhushan. Similarly, the cash memo issued by American Automobile Diesel Services is in the name of one Shashi Bhusan Singh. The letter written by Haryana Tractor(India) to the OP shows that the goods were booked by it sold vide their bill No.501 dated 6.9.2014. From the documents mentioned above, we are unable to comprehend as to how the present complainant i.e. Ravi Ranjan falls within the four corners of definition of consumer which as per section 2(d) of the ‘Act’ reads as under:-
(d) “consumer” means any person who,
- buys any goods for a consideration which has been
paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or
- hires or avails of any services for a consideration
which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the persons who hires or avails of the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person but does not include a person who avails of such services for any commercial purpose.
4. From a close scrutiny of all the documents filed by the complainant in the present case we are of the considered view that the complainant has neither purchased the goods nor hired the services of OP, therefore the complainant does not fall within the ambit of consumer as defined in the ‘Act’. Hence, the complaint is dismissed.
Copy of this order be sent to the parties as per rules.
Announced this 10th day of May, 2016.
(K.S. MOHI) (SUBHASH GUPTA) (SHAHINA)
President Member Member
