M.THANIKACHALAM, J. - (1.) The unsuccessful opposite parties are the appellants.
(2.) The complainant being a wholesale Merchant used to purchase Lungies, at Chennai for business. On 17.10.2003, he had purchased lungies for a sum of Rs.50,500/- from Mohammed Ismail Company, which were sent through the first opposite party transport in two bundles, for which, the first opposite party had collected a sum of Rs.80/-. On 19.10.2003, when the complainant had been to the transport office of the second opposite party at Ramnad, only one small bundle was available, and the big bundle, which is valued at Rs.40,000/- was missing. When questioned, the opposite parties promised to trace out and hand over, but they failed, despite repeated oral demands and notice, thereby committed not only mental agony, but also caused monetary loss, for which, the complainant is entitled to Rs.1 lakh. Hence, the claim.
(3.) The opposite parties admitting the entrustment of two parcel for transporting from Chennai at Ramanathapuram, resisted the complaint contending that the transaction relates to commercial activities, which is excluded from the purview of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant is not a consumer and the District Forum cannot have jurisdiction, that when the opposite party offered to pay compensation, the complainant alone failed to produce the bill, to prove the value of the missing parcel, for which, the opposite parties cannot be held responsible and that since there was no deficiency or mental agony as incorrectly pleaded, no order should be passed against them, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.;