Delhi

StateCommission

A/240/2015

DHL LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. & ANR. - Complainant(s)

Versus

GEE PEE MICA PVT. LTD. - Opp.Party(s)

31 Oct 2018

ORDER

 

Amended as per order dated 29.01.2019

IN THE STATE COMMISSION : DELHI

(Constituted under Section 9 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986)

Date of Arguments :31.10.2018

Date of Decision : 12.11.2018

FIRST APPEAL NO.240/2015

In the matter of:

1. M/s. DHL Logistic (P) Ltd.,

201-A Silver Utopia,

Cardinal Gracious Road,

Chakala, Andheri East,

Mumbai-400099 (Maharashtra)

Through its Company Secretary

 

2. M/s. DHL Global Forwarding (Korea) ltd.,

12fl, Irae bldg, 2 Yangpyeong-Dong 4-Ga

Yeongdeungpo-Gu, Seoul, Korea 150-967

Through its Authorised representative

 

3. Danmar Lines Ltd.,

P.O. Box-2651,

4002, Basel Switzerland.

Through its Directors / M.D

           

                                                Versus.                      

 

M/s. Gee pee MICA Pvt. Ltd.,

M-34, Shastri Nagar, Delhi-52.

Through its Director Shri Pratap Singh                                                    .…..Respondent

CORAM

Hon’ble Sh. O. P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

Hon’ble Sh. Anil Srivastava, Member

1.     Whether reporters of local newspaper be allowed to see the judgment?                                                      Yes/No

2.      To be referred to the reporter or not?                                                                                                           Yes/No

O.P. Gupta, Member (Judicial)

 

JUDGEMENT

1. The OP has assailed order dated 02.03.2015 passed by District Forum, New Delhi in CC No.926/08 vide which the complaint was allowed and appellant was directed to pay Rs.8,02,494/- for non lifting of goods and Rs.3 lakhs for transportation to Delhi, Rs.50,000/- as compensation for deficiency, Rs.20,000/- for litigation charges.
2. Case presented by respondent herein/ the complainant before District Forum alleged that  appellant unloaded the tenure of goods at Bombay Port from where complainant had to get the same transported to Delhi at its cost. The complainant was dealing in  import and export and booked goods  D-Grade Copper Clad Laminate rejects from Korea in September, 2007 with OP-3, through  a bill of lading dated 16.09.07 through forwarding agent/ OP-2. It did not receive the goods in agreed time of one month. He had to pay Rs.8,02,494/- for non lifting of goods charges and Rs.3 lakhs for transportation to Delhi.
3. OP-1 filed WS stating that OP-1 was being managed by  immigration with Excel India Pvt. Ltd which was the entity in place of OP-s as impleaded. The Consumer Forum had no territorial jurisdiction as bill of lading was issued at Korea, Port of discharge was  Nahva Sheva, Mumbai. Even if the same was to be delivered at Tughlakabad, Forum had no jurisdiction. Complaint was barred by limitation. Bill of lading was to be amended if the goods were to be transported to Delhi for which complainant did not agree.
4. The complainant filed evidence and written arguments. After going through the same the District Forum found that place of delivery was shown as 1CD Tughlakabad. Thus it was a duty of OP to take consignment at said place.. The District Forum allowed cost of transportation of goods to Delhi from Bombay and other charges incurred by complainant as per invoices. It also awarded compensation and litigation charges as mentioned above.
5. The respondent did not appear on 27.04.16  despite service by RAD. It was proceeded exparte vide order dated 21.09.16.
6. We have gone through the material on record and heard the arguments. The counsel for the appellant submitted that District Forum did not discuss any of the defence taken by appellant. It did not go through the written arguments filed by it and the judgement cited therein.
7. Copy of written arguments filed by appellant in the District Forum is on record. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Birla Technology Ltd vs. Natural Glasses and Allied Service Ltd. (2011) 1 STC 525 amendment of Section 2(1)(d) Consumer Protection Act made in 2002 w.e.f.15.03.03 was noticed and it was held that even after amendment, if service of carrier has been availed of for any commercial purpose then the person availing the service will not be a consumer. Consequently the complaint will not be maintainable. Exactly is the same situation in the present case where complainant hired service of appellant for business purpose.
8. The aforesaid to decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court is sufficient to barr the complaint.
9. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is accepted, impugned order  is set aside and complaint is dismissed.
10. Copy of the order be sent to both the parties free of cost.
11. One copy of the order be sent to District Forum for information.
12. File be consigned to record room.

 

 

(ANIL SRIVASTAVA)                           (O.P. GUPTA)

MEMBER                                               MEMBER (JUDICIAL)nk