Unisource Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Continental Airline Cargo (United Cargo & Continental Cargo) and Ors. - (National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) (15 Mar 2017)

If goods are bought or services are hired or availed for commercial purpose, person concerned would not be considered as consumer

MANU/CF/0142/2017

Consumer

Unisource Trading (India) Pvt. Ltd. has filed instant complaint against opposite parties, namely, Continental Airline Cargo and Perfect Cargo Movers Pvt. Ltd. alleging deficiency in service on part of the opposite parties in delivering consignment of garments to purchasers after expiry of due date resulting in loss to complainant. Opposite party in its written statement apart from denying allegations on merits have taken a specific plea that complainant is not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As such he has no locus standi to maintain complaint.

Consumer is a person who buys goods or hires or avail of services for consideration whether past, present or to be paid in future. Section 2(1)(d) of Act carves out an exception by providing that if goods are bought or services are hired or availed for commercial purpose, person concerned would not be a consumer. In instant case, admittedly, services of opposite parties were hired for commercial purpose i.e. to deliver goods produced by complainant to purchaser in furtherance of purchase order.

Admittedly, complaint has been filed by Private Limited Company which is not a natural person. Therefore, question of Private Limited Company indulging in commercial activity for earning his livelihood does not arise. Otherwise also, perusal of allegations made in complaint would show that it is case of complainant that complainant is a renowned export/buying house recognized by Ministry of Commerce and Industry and is in business for more than a decade with large number of renowned retailers world wide. Instant complaint has been filed by Logistic Manager as also authorized representative of the complainant company which gives an indication that complainant-company is running large scale business with help of several employees including a Logistic Manager. Present is not a case of self employment but a case of giving employment to several other persons. Therefore, this is not a case which is covered under Explanation to Section 2(1)(d) of the Act which gives restricted meaning to the term 'commercial purpose'.

Instant complaint has been filed on allegations of deficiency in service in respect of services hired or availed for commercial purpose. Therefore, complainant-company is not a consumer as envisaged under Section 2(1)(d) of Act. Consequently, Complainant-Company has no locus standi to file consumer complaint. Consumer complaint is, therefore, dismissed.

Relevant : Section 2(1)(d) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986

Tags : SERVICE DEFICIENCY LOCUS STANDI