Chandigarh

DF-I

CC/2/2017

Manish Grover - Complainant(s)

Versus

DTDC E-COMMERCE LOGISTICS Ltd. - Opp.Party(s)

Ankur Bali

03 Jun 2019

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM-I,

U.T. CHANDIGARH

 

                               

Consumer Complaint No.	:	CC/2/2017
Date of Institution	:	30/12/2016
Date of Decision	:	03/06/2019

 

Manish Grover, Sole Proprietor, M/s God Grace Foundation, having its branch office at SCO No.15, Kalgidhar Enclave, Baltana, Zirakpur, Tehsil : Derabassi, District : Mohali (Punjab).

… Complainant

V E R S U S

1.     DTDC E-commerce Logistics Limited through its Managing Director, having its registered office at 2^nd Floor, No.2, DTDC house, Victoria Road, Bangalore, Karnataka.

2.     DTDC e-commerce Logistics Limited through its Branch Manager, Branch Office : SCO No.267, Sector 35-D, Chandigarh

… Opposite Parties

CORAM :	SHRI RATTAN SINGH THAKUR	PRESIDENT
	SHRI SURESH KUMAR SARDANA	MEMBER

                                                                     

ARGUED BY	:	Sh. Ankur Bali, Counsel for complainant
	:	Sh. B.S. Walia, Counsel for OPs

Per Rattan Singh Thakur, President

1.         Brief facts, as set out in the consumer complaint are, complainant deals in trading of herbal products which are manufactured by various vendors and supplied through advertisement via print as well as visual media. On 20.8.2014, the complainant had entered into an agreement with the OPs for providing service of cash on delivery and to credit the cash after collecting the same in the bank account of the complainant after deducting the applicable charges. The grouse is, till August, 2014, OPs had been delivering the products as collected from the complainant on time and used to credit the payments so collected after a little delay.  However, the products collected by OPs for the month of September to December 2014 were neither delivered by them nor returned back to the complainant.  As such, the complainant had suffered a financial loss of Rs.6,81,650/-. Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal notice dated 28.5.2015 to the OPs, but, to no avail. Hence, the present consumer complaint praying for refund of the amount of Rs.6,81,650/- as well as the amount deducted for the services alongwith interest; compensation and costs of litigation.
2.         OPs contested the consumer complaint and filed their joint written reply.  It is their case, complainant is a businessman and services of OPs were hired during the course of business, therefore, he is not a defined consumer.  Even otherwise, OPs have to recover an amount of Rs.1,40,264.90 as per the debit-credit statement maintained by them.  Therefore, it is basically a suit for rendition of accounts cognizable by civil court and not maintainable under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On these lines, the cause is sought to be defended.
3.         Rejoinder was filed and averments made in the consumer complaint were reiterated.
4.         Parties led evidence by way of affidavits and documents.
5.         We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. After perusal of record, our findings are as under:-
6.          Per paragraph No.3 of the consumer complaint, it is the case of the complainant that he deals in trading of herbal products which are manufactured by various vendors.  The word used “trading of herbal products” itself speaks of commercial transactions entered into by the complainant with the OPs.
7.         The business of complainant must be running into Rs.30 – 40 lakhs in a year with the agreement of the OPs as the amount claimed of one quarter i.e. September 2014 to December 2014 comes out to Rs.6,81,650/-. From these transactions it cannot be construed that with such big business, complainant was earning his livelihood by means of self-employment. The complainant itself is a firm i.e. M/s God Grace Foundation and Mr. Manish Grover has been mentioned as its sole proprietor though in the Agreement (Annexure C-1/ Pg.18 he is mentioned as the Director.  Therefore, it cannot be construed that the said transaction was entered into by the complainant with the OPs for the purpose of self-employment. The complainant seems to be a big businessman. It is a case of dispute inter se businessman versus businessman and the matter is exclusively commercial in nature. OPs have relied on case National Dairy Research Institute Vs. Sheldon Manufacturing Inc., II (2013) CPJ 275 (NC) where machine was purchased for commercial purpose only and it was held by the Hon’ble National Commission that purchase of a machine by an institute cannot come with the term “services” availed by the complainant institute exclusively for the purpose of earning its livelihood by means of self-employment.  Thus, to our mind, the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer as he was promoting business of the firm exclusively for trading and not for personal living or say self-employment.
8.         Service provider or say businessman per written statement and the statement furnished has referred that as per their debit credit statement they have to recover a sum of Rs.1,40,264/- from the complainant.  The complainant is a firm and the OP is a company. The dispute is commercial in nature and not cognizable by this Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. So, this protection in the capacity of consumer cannot be provided to the complainant firm.  OPs further relied on case, Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank Vs. M/s Bhaskar Textiles, 2015 (1) CLT 89, and the relevant headnote thereof is reproduced as under :-

                “Consumer Protection Act, 1986 Section 2(1)(d) Banking for commercial purpose – complainants running textile business, sent the goods sold to another firm by transport and the papers were sent through the OP bank – Bank was required to collect the payment before releasing the bilties to that firm – Held that, since the services of the bank were availed by the complainant for commercial purpose in the course of their business transaction, consumer complaint was not maintainable under the Act – Revision petitions allowed – Impugned orders set aside.

9.         In view of the above discussion, we do not find any deficiency in service or unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs and the present consumer complaint, being devoid of any merit, is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
10.         The certified copies of this order be sent to the parties free of charge. The file be consigned.

03/06/2019	[Suresh Kumar Sardana]	[Rattan Singh Thakur]
hg	Member	President