JAYALAKSHMI TRANSPORT (REGD.) vs MILL STORE (MADRAS) PVT.LTD

OPPOSING the order of the District Forum against them the opposite party Sri Jayalakshmi Transport has filed this appeal.

THE complaint was filed against the opposite party alleging that the Dhanalakshmi Mill Stores, Madras sent a consignment of 37 Huller Cylinders through the opposite party to be delivered to the complainant M/s. Mill Stores (Madras) Pvt. Ltd., Tiruchy. But since the goods were found defective and unmerchantable, the complainant did not take delivery and therefore the opposite party took back the consignment to deliver it to the consignor at Madras. But it did not do so. Because of this lapse on the part of the opposite party, on pressure from the consignor the complainant had to pay the value of the consignment namely Rs. 3,700/-. Besides, the complainant has incurred a sum of Rs. 300/- as incidental charges. THE opposite party is liable to pay these amounts to tine complainants. THE opposite party is further liable to pay other damages. On these grounds the complaint has been filed for an award. The opposite party contended that the complainant is not entitled to any claim from them. It further contended that on refusal by the complainant to take delivery of the goods, the opposite party re-delivered the goods to the consignor. Therefore, there is absolutely no liability for the opposite party to pay any amount to the complainant.

The lower Forum on consideration of evidence hold that the opposite party has not proved that it had redelivered the goods to the consignor and therefore it is liable to pay to the complainant the value of the goods and other charges incurred by it.

IN the appeal it is contended that there is nothing to show that the complainant is a consumer vis-a-vis the opposite party and therefore the complaint is not maintainable and the lower Forum has lost sight of this aspect of the matter. On a careful consideration we find that there is much force in this submission. On a close reading of the complaint we find that it is no where stated that the complainant paid any freight charges to the opposite party. It is not at all known whether the complainant paid the freight charges or the consignor paid it. That being the case there is nothing to hold that any consideration has been paid by the complainant to the opposite party and as such the complainant cannot be held to be a consumer within the definition given in the Consumer Protection Act. It is therefore apparent that the complaint ought not to have been entertained by the District Forum. Consequently the order passed by it cannot be sustained.

IN the result, we allow the appeal; set aside the order of the District Forum and dismiss the complaint. We pass no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.