State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Sec Industries Pvt Ltd., vs 1.Dtdc Courier & Cargo Ltd., on 5 May, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
FA.NO.219/2017
AGAINST THE ORDERSIN CC.NO. 216 OF 2015 ON THE FILE
OF DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY
Between:
M/s.SEC Industries Pvt. Limited,
Having its office at 6/25, Balanagar,
RR District, Represented by its
Asst.General Manager (H.R.)
K.Satish Babu, S/o.Late K.Lakshmaiah.
Appellant/Complainant
And
1. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
Represented by its Franchise
SVS Enterprises, Plot No.09,
Survey No.580/581, No.3,
Midland Building, IDA, Uppal,
Hyderabad - 500 039,
Telangana.
2. DTDC Courier & Cargo Ltd.,
Represented by its Manager,
Casana No.373, Ranipuri Extn.
Near TATA Tele Service Center,
Mahipalpur Branch,
New Delhi - 110 037.
Respondents/Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant: M/s. V. Venkata Mâyur
Counsel for the Respondents/Opp.Parties: Mr.S.Ravindranath-R1
& 2
QUORAM: SRI JUSTICE M.S.K.JAISWAL, HON'BLE PRESIDENT,
HON'BLE SMT. SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, LADY MEMBER
HON'BLE SRI K. RANGA RAO, MEMBER-JUDICIAL THURSDAY, THE FIFTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWO *** * Order
1. This is an' appeal filed under Section-15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 praying this Commission to set aside the order dated 18.04.2017 passed in CC.No.216/2015 on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum at Ranga Reddy District and allow the appeal.
described as
convenience, the parties a r e
2. For the sake of
arrayed in the complaint.
utilized
are that, the Complainant
3. Briefly stated, the facts of
Limited for the purpose
the services of DTDC Courier and Cargo
Government
tender called by the Ministry
of Defence,
couriering a
in the business of designing
of India. The Complainant is engaged
products. On
defence and aerospace
and manufacturing of
an
couriered through
09.04.2015, the tender documents
were
The
No.H43195159 and H43195160.
agent vide two consignments
DRDO Development
said documents were to be delivered to SPC, within two days Enclave, Rao Tulla Ram Marg, Delhi Cantonment of dispatch. It is alleged that the tender documents were delivered date of the with a delay on. 17.04.2015 and since the closing tenders were fixed as 15.04.2015, the Complainant's tenders were not accepted by the concerned department and were retsrned in the same sealed condition to the Complainant. Opposite Parties failed to deliver the consignment within two days i.e., on 11.04.2015 as promised by them. There was a delay of six days thus the Complainànt suffered much financial loss. If the tender documents were submitted within time, the Complainant would got the contract. But due to the delay caused by the Opposite Parties, the Complainant could not participate in the contract and thereby lost their chance to win the contract. Hence, the complaint.
4. The Opposite Parties filed their written version contending that the Complainant cannot be termed as a "Consumer as the subject consignment was sent in order to develop their business with a profit motive. It is contended that the consignment were booked under DTDC Light Category and under the said category consignments shali be delivered within 10 days, Further, the Opposite Parties provide services under DTDC Metro, DTDC Plus, DTDC Prime Time, DTDC Metro Plus, DTDC Blue etc. If the matter was urgent, the Complainant ought to have opted for 12 hours delivery category but instead the Complainant opted for DTDC 3 Light Category and hence they cannot allege deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Parties. If the, importance of the consignnment was declared, the Opposite Parties would have charged a to shoulder the risk involved in special rate failed transportation of the alleged consignment. The Complainant to do so and .cannot, now take advantage of their own wrongS the part of doings. Therefore, there is no deficiency of service on the Opposite Parties and the complaint may be dismissed.
Forum, the Complainant filed evidence Before the District affidavit and Ex.A1 to A20 marked on his behalf. The Opposite Parties filed evidence affidavit. No documents were marked on their behalf.
6. The District Forum after hearing both sides and considering material on record, dismissed the comnplaint as not the maintainable since the Complainant cannot be termed as a and directed that the parties shall bear their own Consumer"
costs.
7. Aggrieved by the above said order of the District Forum, the Complainant filed this appeal contending that the Forum below had failed to consider the following:
The Appellant is in the business of designing and manufacturing of defence and aerospace products only. The Appellant is not in any other commercial activities.. .The Forum below erroneously dismissed the complaint on the ground thae the tender documents has direct nexus to the business engaged in by the Appellant and hence the Appellant is not Consumer as provided in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The Forum below ought to have seen that there is no commercial transaction took place between the Appellant and the Respondents/Opposite Parties. The only question that has to be decided by the Forum is regarding the delay in service of courier, which deficiency in services by the Respondents/Opposite Parties. The Forum below ought to have seen that the Respondents/Opposite Parties who are supposed to deliver the courier within the stipulated time have caused deficiency in services
8. After having heard the subrmissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the Appellant and the Opposite Parties, we are of the opinion that the controversy boils down to a narrow aspect as to whether the Appellant/Complainant answers the description of a Consumer as required by the Consumer Protection Act.
9. Briefly stated the facts which are not contraverted are that, the Appellant/ Complainant is in the business of supplying defence equipments and in pursuance to a notification of the department, he wantéd to submit his tender, the last date for which was 15.04.2015. The Complainant has prepared all the paper and handed over to the Opposite Party on 09.04.2015 who is in the business of courier. service. The Complainant claims that the personnel of the Opposite Party have assured that the cover will b delivered to the addressee within two days i.e., by 11.04:2015. However, the cover reached on 17.04.2015 thereby denying an opportunity to the Appellant/Complainant to compete with the other tenderers in the matter of allotment of the works. This according to the Complainant has led to huge financial loss to him.
10. On the other hand the contention. of the Respondernt/Opposite Party is that, due to some disturbances in between the delivery boy and the management, the delay in delivery of the consignment took place and that since it is a commercial tran_action, the Complainant in the present Forum do not lie.
11. The learned District Commission has framed the following two points for.consideration:
1. Whether the Complainant is a "Consumer" as per the provisions of Section 2(1d) of C.P.Act of 1986? 2 Whether there is has bveen tdefieieney al arvite' hy Iie Opposite P'arties, il su lo what rolicf
12 he Distriet Commission has considerod 1oint No. 1 and held that the Appellant/Complainant is not a Consumer and thSTeby non-suited the Complainant, This linding of the District Foruin is challenged on the ground that the Distriet Forui erred in bolding that the Complainant is not a Consumer cven though lie has only anded over a cover containing a tender lo be subnitted to the Department of Defenee and that it is not a commercial transgction, Entrustment of a cover to be delivered to the addronnec cannot be said to be trunsuction. Muy be the commere Appellant/Complainant having commereial dealings with the Departnent to which the lctter wna proposecd to be delivered but so far as the Purty is concerned, the Respondcnt/Opposite between the Appellant/Complainant and the relationship Respondent/Opposite Party is purely Consumerism viz., he entrusted a postal cover to be delivered to the addressce within a reasonable time and since that was not delivered within' reasonable time, the Complainant claims he hàs sustained a huge loss. Therefore, the Forum is not correct in saying that the Appellant/Complainant is not a Consumer so as to non-suit him before the District Forum.
13. The District Forum has not given any findings on point No.2 with regard to the alleged deficiency on the part of the Opposite Parties. It is open to the District Forum to adjudicate the matter afresh on merits and decide as to whether the alleged act of the Respondent/Opposite Party in non-delivery of the cover within the reasonable time amounts to deficiency of service and as to what is the reasonable and just compensation that can be awarded to the Appellant/Complainant. But dismissing the complaint solely on the ground that the Appellant/Complainant is not a Consumer cannot be sustained. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is remanded to the District Forum with a direction to give finding on point No.2 holding that the Appellant/Compiainant is a Consumer so as to avail the remedies 6 that are available to him under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act.
14. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the APpellant/Complainant is a Consumer and is entitled to approach the District Forum for ventilating his grievance and is entitled to relief if he is otherwise entitled to in accordance with law.
15. In the result, the matter is remanded to District Forum, Ranga Reddy to decide the issue No.2 which has been framed by it in its impugned judgment.
16. Since both the parties are present before us today and since the CC pertains to year 2015, they are directed to appear before the District Forum, Ranga Reddy on 23.06.2022 by which date the Registry shall transmit the order as well a s the entire records without fail.