DIST. CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL FORUM
NORTH 24 Pgs., BARASAT.
C. C. NO-79/2017
Date of Filing: Date of Admission:- Date of Disposal:
17.02.2017 08.03.2017 27.03.2019
Complainant :- Orion Edutech private Limited,
Orion House, 28, Chinar Park, Rajarhat Road,
Kolkata-700 157, West Bengal.
Represented by its authorized Representative-
Mr. Semal Kumar Yadav,
S/o Mr. G.P. Yadav.
=Vs.=
OPs:- 1. DTDC, East,
Represented by its Zonal Manager, DTDC Bhawan,Raghunathpur
VIP Road, Kolkata-700 059, West Bengal.
2. The Head of the Department, DTDC,
269, Lahiri Towers, I Main, Champrajpet,
Bangalore-560018, Karnataka.
3. The Head of the Department, DTDC,
DTDC House, No-3, Victoria Road, Bangalore-560047, Karnatak.
:-Sri. BankimChandraChattopadhyay…….President.
P R E S E N T :- :- Smt. SilpiMajumder………………………Member.
Final Order
This complaint is filed by the Complainant u/S 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 alleging deficiency in service as well as unfair trade practice against the OPs as the OPs did not pay the cost of the hard disk to the Complainant till filing of this complaint.
The brief fact of the case of the Complainant is that in due course of business and day to day transport the Complainant had availed of the service of the OP-1. On 07.09.2016 the Complainant had sent one computer external hard disk, the present value of the same is for Rs.6950/-, the OP-1 issued consignment number, the said hard disk is filled with confidential data and information of the Complainant-Company. On 16.09.2016 the hard disk was dispatched for delivery. But in the website there was no trace of the said item as well as no update. After expiry of seven days the item was not delivered by the OP. On enquiry the Complainant-Company could not trace out the same. Communication was made by the Complainant with the OP-1, e-mail sent on 23.09.2016 to the said effect, but to no effect. Reminder was issued by the Complainant on 01.10.2016, no result was yielded. Before filing this complaint legal notices were issued on 06.10.2016 to the OP-1, 2 and 3 requesting them to take adequate and proper step for recovery of the said hard disk along with data and information contained therein and in case of failure to compensate the Complainant as the Complainant has incurred loss due to deficiency and negligence of the OPs. But the said OPs did not bother to reply the said legal notices. As the OPs did not take any step to redress the grievance of the Complainant, hence finding no other alternative the Complainant has approached before this Ld. Forum by filing this complaint praying for direction upon the OPs to pay a sum of Rs.6950/- towards the cost of the hand disk, to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards the loss occurred due to non-delivery of the hard disk on time, to pay compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- due to misappropriation of the hard disk and loss of data, to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- due to harassment, mental agony and pain and litigation cost of Rs.20,000/- to him.
The OPs have contested the complaint by filing written version contending that the consignment was booked by the Complainant, who is private limited company and not a consumer according to the Section 2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. According to the OPs on this score alone the complaint is liable to be dismissed with cost.
The Complainant and the OPs have adduced evidence on affidavit. The OPs by filing a petition have prayed for adoption of their written version as their evidence. Both parties have filed several documents in support of their respective contentions. The OPs have filed BNA. On the date of hearing argument none was present on behalf of the Complainant. As the evidence of the Complainant is on record, we were not inclined either to show cause the Complainant or dismiss the complaint for default. We took up the hearing argument in presence of the ld. Counsel for the OPs.
We have carefully perused the record; documents, BNA filed by the OPs, Rulings on which the OPs have placed their reliance and heard argument at length advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the parties.The OPs have stated that a Private Limited Company cannot be a consumer and hence it is not empowered to initiate any consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The OPs have placed reliance on some rulings in support of their contention which as follows-
- RP-3517/2007, passed by the Hon’ble NCDRC in the case of M/s. Computer Services (P) Limited vs. M/s. Allena Auto Industries Private Limited, dated 14.03.2012.
- FA/662/2013, passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal, in the case of DTDC Courier & Cargo Limited & Another vs. M/s. Future Value Retail Limited, dated 28.11.2014.
- CC/56/2011, passed by the Hon’ble SCDRC, West Bengal, in the case of Family Credit Limited vs. State Bank of India, dated 11.03.2014.
We have carefully perused the abovementioned rulings. It is seen by us that in the first ruling the Hon’ble NCDRC has been pleased to observe that the Private Limited Company is not a consumer under the definition of ‘Consumer’ as per the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Company does the commercial activities for its shareholders, question of earning livelihood by means of self-employment would not arise. In the second and third ruling the Hon’ble SCDRC, WB was pleased to hold that a Private Limited Company cannot maintain a consumer complaint and therefore the Complainant cannot be said a consumer.
The aforementioned Rulings in our view are applicable in the case in hand as the facts of the relied cases are almost similar and identical with the instant complaint. Therefore having regard to the abovementioned judgments we are of the view that the present Complainant cannot be termed as consumer and for this reason the complaint initiated by the Private limited Company is not maintainable as a Consumer Complaint before the Ld. District Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Going by the foregoing discussion hence it is ordered that the consumer complaint no-79/2017 is hereby dismissed on contest. Considering the facts and circumstances of this complaint there is no order as to cost.
Let plain copy of this judgment be given to the parties free of cost as per the CPR, 2005.
Member President
Dictated & Corrected by
