BEFORE THE A.P.STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD
F.A.No.198/2013 against C.C.No.91/2011, Dist. Forum, Srikakulam.
Between:
M/s.ANL Parcel Service,
Having its registered office
at 5-9-30/1/5/V , Road no.4,
Basheerbagh, Palace Colony,
Hyderabad-500 063,
Rep. by its Sr.Vice President Mr.J.Sowmithri. … Appellant/
Opp.party no.3
And
1.Tangilla Venkata Shiva,
S/o.Sri Ramulu, Aged about 28 years,
Occ:Computer Asst. Mechanic,
Owner of Sri Ram Computers, Gandhi Complex,
16th Ward, Kasibugga Town, Srikakulam District. …Respondent/
Complainant
2.ANL Parcel Service,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Palasa, Kasibugga Town,
Palasa Mandal, Srikakulam District. … Respondent/
Opp.party no.1
3. ANL Parcel Service,
Rep. by its Branch Manager,
Main Branch Office, Dwaraka Nagar,
Visakhapatnam City. … Respondent/
Opp.party no.2
Counsel for the Appellant : M/s. M.Pavan Kumar
Counsel for the Respondents : M/s. A.Rama Rao
QUORUM: SRI T.ASHOK KUMAR, HON’BLE MEMBER
AND
SRI S.BHUJANGA RAO, HON’BLE MEMBER
TUESDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JUNE
TWO THOUSAND FOURTEEN.
Oral Order: (Per Sri S.Bhujanga Rao, Hon’ble Member)
****
This appeal is directed against the order dt.26.09.2012 of the District Consumer Forum at Srikakulam made in C.C.No.91/2011 filed by the respondent no.1/complainant seeking direction to the opp.parties to pay an amount of Rs.40,000/- towards the value of the consignment goods that were sent to Opp.partyno.1 at Palasa and the same was not reached the consignee (the complainant), along with interest etc.
The appellant herein is opp.party no.1 and the respondent no.1 herein is the complainant and the respondents 2 and 3 are the opp.parties 1 and 2 in C.C.No.91/2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties are described as they are arrayed in the compliant.
The brief case of the complainant as per the complaint is that he is working as Computer Assistant Mechanic and also running computer shop under the name and style “Srirama Computers” at Kasibugga, Palasa. On 12.05.2010, the complainant purchased computer items, twenty in number (detailed in the complaint), for an amount of Rs.40,000/- from Rani Sati Computers at Visakhapatnam and the said Rani Sati Computers had issued a tax invoice number, in favour of the complainant’s computer centre by name Sri Rama Computers dt.12.05.2010, after receiving the cash. The purchased computer items were packed and on 14.05.2010 the above said packed items were sent by the complainant’s friend V.K.Naidu to the 1st opposite party to enable the complainant to receive the same at Palasa, through opposite party no.2 courier service, Visakhapatnam, vide receipt no.20465935, issued in the name of V.K. Naidu.
On receipt of the said receipt, the complainant approached opposite party no.1 and enquired about his parcel items. The opposite party no.1 without giving any reply and without giving proper explanation regarding the delivery of the parcel items, simply dragged on the matter. Having vexed with the temperament of opposite party no.1, as a final resort, the complainant got issued a legal notice to opposite party no.3 on 20.07.2010. Opposite party no.3 received the said noticeand gave a reply informing the complainant, that they would take action in that regard. The complainant has also given complaints to the police concerned, but the police did not even register the case. Hence the complaint.
Resisting the complaint, the opp.party no.1 filed counter denying the material allegations made in the compliant. The counter of opp.party no.1 was adopted by the opp.parties 2 and 3. The opp.parties admitted that one V.K.Naidu has booked the parcel under cover note no.20465935 dt.14.05.2010 addressed to Sri Rama Computers, Palasa. The opp.parties contended that the complainant in the present complaint has not booked any parcel with opp.partyno.1, as alleged in the complaint and that they have no knowledge about the contents of the sealed parcel booked by the consignor V.K.Naidu. Therefore, the present complainant has no right to claim the parcel or value of the parcel or compensation, as mentioned in the complaint. Hence, the present complaint is liable to be dismissed, as the complainant has no locus standi to file the complaint.
The opposite parties further contended that the parcel was misplaced in transit due to mishandling of the driver of the RTC and therefore, there is no negligence or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties and as such, they are not liable to pay any amount of compensation or alleged claim of compensation, to the complainant .
The opp.parties denied that the value of the parcel is Rs.40,000/- and that the said parcel contained several items as mentioned in the complaint and contended that the said value was exaggerated only to file the present complaint and it is against the declared value in the consignment note. The opposite parties further contended without prejudice their contentions, that they are liable only for Rs.100/- as per the conditions made in the consignment note. If the District Forum deems that they are liable to pay compensation or otherwise, the declared value as mentioned in the consignment note. The complaint is therefore liable tobe dismissed.
During the course of enquiry, before the District Forum, the complainant has not filed evidence affidavit in proof of his case. However, the complainant got marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the opp.parties, opp.party no.1 filed evidence affidavit, but no documents were filed.
Having heard the counsel for both the parties and having considered the evidence on record, the District Forum allowed the complaint in part, directing the opp.parties 1 to 3 to pay jointly and severally a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the complainant within two months. If the amount is not paid within two months, the complainant is entitled to interest at 12% p.a. from the date of courier i.e. 14.05.2011 till the date of realisation. The District Forum further directed them to pay Rs.3000/- to the complainant towards costs.
Aggrieved by the said order, the opp.party no.3 preferred the above appeal urging that the District Forum ought to have seen that basing on the evidence on record, and basing on the self declaration of the complainant that he is doing business , the District Forum ought to have dismissed the complaint , since the complainant does not fall under the definition of the ‘Consumer’ and that the Forum has no jurisdiction. That the District Forum erred in appreciating and ignoring the fact that the liability of appellant is limited to an extent of Rs.5/- per kg. in case of loss or damage to the consignment, irrespective of the total value declared, which is one among the terms and conditions mentioned in the consignment note. That the District Forum ought to have seen that the complainant declared the value of the parcel/consignment at Rs.4000/- and further there was no invoice attached or the contents of the consignment were not disclosed at the time of booking. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the impugned order of the District Forum may be set aside.
We heard the counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material placed on record.
Now the point for consideration is whether the impugned order of the District forum is vitiated for misappreciation of fact or law?
The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/opp.party no. 3 is that the complainant is doing business under the name and style of Sri Rama Computers at Kasibugga Town, Srikakulam Dist. and that the consignment booked with the opp.parties is for business purpose. Therefore, basing on the evidence on record and basing on the self declaration of the complainant that he is doing business, the complainant does not fall under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as defined under Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. Therefore, the complaint is not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act and as such, the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
To deal with the question projected herein above, in this appeal, it is necessary to go through the definition of ‘Consumer” as contained in Sec.2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act.
“ 2.(1)(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 partly paid or partly 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 person 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”.
In para III (a) of the complaint, the complainant has categorically stated that he is a Computer Assistant Mechanic and that he has been running computer shop under the name and style ‘Sri Rama Computers’ at Kasibugga , Srikakulam Dist. The complainant further stated that he purchased computer parts, twenty in numbers, from Rani Sati Computers, for a sum of Rs.40,000/- and sent the same from Visakhapatnam through opp.party no.2 ANL Parcel Service toopp.party no.1 ANL Parcel Service Branch at Kasibugga Town , Palasa in order to deliver the same at the computer shop of the complainant . Nowhere in thecomplaint and in his evidence affidavit , the complainant has stated that he is running the shop for his livelihood . From the above statement of the complainant in the complaint , there can be no doubt that the complainant purchased the goods for his business in his computer shop . Therefore, we are of the view that the goods purchased by the complainant are being used by the complainant for a commercial purpose for earning more profit and therefore, the complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ within the meaning of Sec.2(1)(d)(i) of the Act. The complaint is therefore not maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act.
In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned order of the District Forum is hereby set aside. The complaint filed by the complainant is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. The respondent no.1/complainant is at liberty to approach any Civil Court or any appropriate Forum. If the respondent/complainant chooses to file a suit, for the relief claimed, in the present complaint, according to law, he can claim the benefit of Sec.14 of the Limitation Act to exclude the period spent in prosecuting the proceedings under the Consumer Protection Act, while computing the period of Limitation prescribed for such a suit, in terms of the order of the Apex Court in TRAI FOODS LTD. vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. & ORS reported in (2004) 13 SCC 656.
MEMBER
MEMBER
Pm* Dt. 24.06.2014
