Manager, Om Logistics Limited vs Naveen Anchalia

THE complainant, who was carrying business under the name and style of In -Gen Motors, in order to earn is livelihood, entrusted a consignment containing 90 carburetors to the petitioner/opposite party for being delivered to Rekha Agriplas Ltd. at Kanak Durga Talkies Road, Vijaywada. A consignment note dated 18 -10 -2012 was issued by the petitioner to the complainant. The consignment, however, did not reach the consignee and the matter was also reported to the police. A letter dated 18 -12 -2012 was then sent by the complainant to the petitioner through counsel, complaining about non delivery of the goods. The said letter, however, did not yield any response from the petitioner, leading to the complainant approaching the concerned District Forum by way of a complaint, seeking either return of the goods or payment of a sum of Rs.1,33,110/ - being price of those goods along with compensation amounting to Rs.10,00,000/ -.

THE complaint was resisted by the petitioner company inter alia on the ground that the complainant should approach the Civil Court for redressal of his grievance, if any. On merits, the opposite party/petitioner did not dispute that the consignment containing 90 carburetors was booked with it by the complainant for being delivered to Rekha Agriplas Ltd. at Vijaywada.

VIDE order dated 24 -04 -2014 the District Forum directed the petitioner company to pay a sum of Rs.1,33,110/ - to the complainant along with compensation amounting to Rs.25,000/ -. The petitioner was also directed to pay punitive damages to the extent of Rs.20,000/ - for adopting unfair trade practice and deceiving the complainant. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum the petitioner company approached the concerned State Commission.

VIDE impugned order dated 02 -02 -2015 the State Commission partly allowed the appeal by directing that the petitioner company will have to pay only a sum of Rs.1,33,100/ - to the complainant, meaning thereby that no compensation in terms of the order of the District Forum would be payable. Being still dissatisfied the petitioner company is before us by way of this revision petition.

THE contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the consignment was booked by the complainant for a commercial purpose he is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. We, however, find ourselves unable to accept the aforesaid contention. In terms of the above referred provision contained in the Consumer Protection Act a person who hires or avails services of a service provider for a commercial purpose is not a consumer, but there is an exception to the aforesaid definition contained in Section 2(1)(d) of the Act. The exception is found in the explanation attached below the aforesaid provision, which provides that commercial purpose does not include the services availed by a person exclusively for the purpose of earning his livelihood by means of self -employment. The complainant specifically pleaded in para 2 of the complaint that he was carrying business as proprietor of M/s. In -Gen Motors in order to earn his livelihood. There was no material on record produced by the petitioner to contravene the aforesaid plea taken by the complainant. This was not the case of the petitioner in the reply filed by it that the petitioner had employed other persons as well in the business carried out by him under the name and style of In -Gen Motors. This was also not their case in the reply that the complainant was not the sole proprietor of the aforesaid concern. In these circumstances we see no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of fact returned by the District Forum and the State Commission in this regard, particularly in exercise of our revisional jurisdiction.

AS regards merits, it was admitted in the reply itself that the goods in question were delivered to the petitioner company for being transported to Vijaywada, to be delivered to M/s. Rekha Agriplas Ltd. No explanation was given by the petitioner/opposite party, in its reply as to what happened to the goods which were booked with it. In the absence of any explanation in this regard it can hardly be disputed that this was a case of gross negligence on the part of the petitioner company in rendering services to the complainant. Therefore, the petitioner company must necessarily compensate the complainant by paying the price of the goods which he had booked with them for being transported to Vijaywada.

FOR the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no merit in the revision petition and the same is hereby dismissed.