- (1.) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order dated 27.12.2007 passed by Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Mehsana in Consumer Complaint No. 36 of 1999, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act (CPA for short) on the grounds stated in the appeal memo. The Appellant is original opponent and the respondent is original complainant and they are referred to in their orginal nomenclature.
(2.) THE short facts of the case are that one M/s. W.S. Industries, Banglore had booked consignment with the opponent 'on freight on delivery basis' to be delivered to the complainant. The associated person of the opponent Shri Purohit visited the complainant and informed them to take the delivery of the consignment by paying freight charges amounting to Rs. 13,201 The complainant however informed the opponent's person that they would take the delivery on 18.9.1997 and the freight charges would be paid. The opponent's person Shri Purohit visited the complainant again on 18.9.1997, but the complainant instead of paying the freight charges snatched away forcefully entire bunch of documents and asked for the delivery of the consignment without payment. Said Shri Purohit protested against the act of complainant and took back the consignment for safe custody. The branch manager of the opponent had telephonic talk with the complainant's representative requesting to give back the original docket to the opponent but he refused to do so. The opponent had written a letter dated 16.9.1997 which came to be refused. Therefore, the opponent had sent a telegram which was not replied by the complainant. As the complainant did not accept the consignment, the opponent was constrained to divert goods to its unclaimed department at Banglore which has central storage of the opponent company. The opponent had also issued notices to the complainant for auction of goods. According to the opponent the complainant is not the consumer and it has no privity of contract with them and that otherwise also the award is perverse on facts and contrary to the provision of the law applicable thereto.
(3.) AS far as legal position is concerned, according to definition of 'consumer' in Section 2 (d) of CPA, a person who hires or avails of any service for consideration is a consumer. The following category of service ayailors will not be consumer: (i) persons who avail any service for any commercial purpose on or after 15.3.2003 (Amendment Act 62 of 2002), (ii) persons who avail any free services, and (iii) persons who avail any service under any contract of service. Only a consumer is entitled to file a complaint under the Act if there is any deficiency of service provided or rendered by the service provider. The expression 'consumer', 'service' and 'deficiency' havebeen explained by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CHB v. Avtarsing,2010 4 CPJ 9, in para 23 at page 21.;