Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI
Hon’ble Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President;
Pulavar V.S. Kandasamy & Dr. (Tmt.) Angel Arulraj, Members
WESTERN CARRIERS—Appellant
versus
TAMIL NADU INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES & ANR.—Respondents
A.P. Nos. 161 to 164 of 1998—Decided on 13.4.1999

Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant :Mr. K.K. Sancheti, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mrs. Elveera Ravindran, Advocate.

The interpretation of Section 2(1)(d) and Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in determining who is a consumer and who has the right to file a complaint under the Act.

Headnote:
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT - WHO IS A CONSUMER - BENEFICIARY OF SERVICE - RIGHT TO FILE COMPLAINT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 2(1)(D)(II) AND SECTION 12 OF THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Fact of the Case:

The case involved four appeals arising from a common order passed by the District Forum, Madras North, in four complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complainants, Tamil Nadu Industrial Enterprises and New India Assurance Company Limited, alleged deficiency in service by the opposite party, M/s. Western Carriers, in relation to the transportation of consignments. The opposite party contended that the complainants were not competent to file the complaints as they were not the consumers of the services.
Finding of the Court:

The majority opinion held that the 1st complainant, Tamil Nadu Industrial Enterprises, was not a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act since the services of the opposite party were engaged by the consignor, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, and not by the 1st complainant. Therefore, the complaints filed by the complainants were not maintainable. The dissenting opinion, however, held that the 1st complainant was a consumer within the meaning of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Act as the beneficiary of the contract of carriage and was entitled to file the complaint.
Issues: 1. Whether the 1st complainant, Tamil Nadu Industrial Enterprises, was a consumer as defined under Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. 2. Whether the complaints filed by the complainants were maintainable under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The majority opinion interpreted Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and held that the term "consumer" refers only to the person who hires or avails of the services and pays consideration or promises to pay consideration. In this case, the services of the opposite party were engaged by the consignor, Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, and not by the 1st complainant. Therefore, the 1st complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Act. 2. The dissenting opinion interpreted Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and held that the term "consumer" also includes the beneficiary of such services, other than the person who hires or avails of the services, when such services are availed of with the approval of the person mentioned in (i) above. In this case, the 1st complainant was the beneficiary of the contract of carriage and had paid for the goods and freight charges. Therefore, the 1st complainant was a consumer within the meaning of the Act.
Final Decision: The majority opinion allowed the appeals, set aside the order of the District Forum, and dismissed the complaints. The dissenting opinion confirmed the order of the District Forum and dismissed the appeals filed by the opposite party.

ORDER

Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—These four appeals arise out of one common order passed by the District Forum, Madras North in four O.Ps. viz., O.P. Nos. 12/97,13/97,120/97 and 121 /97. In these circumstances, all the appeals can be disposed of in one common order.

2. In all the O.Ps. the two complainants as well as the opposite party are the same. In all the O.Ps. the 1st complainant is the Tamil Nadu Industrial Enterprises and the 2nd complainant is the New India Assurance Company Limited. The opposite party is M/s. Western Carriers. In all the O.Ps., the case of the complainants is that certain consignments were entrusted to the opposite party by M/s. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, Korba, Bilaspur, Madhya Pradesh, to be carried and delivered at Madras to the consignee the 1st complainant. There was short delivery in respect of two of the consignments and in other two consignments the goods were damaged. In respect of short delivery, O.P. Nos. 12/97 and 13/97 were filed and in respect of damaged delivery O.P. Nos. 120/97 and 121/97 were filed. According to the complainants, the short delivery and the damage to the goods were due to the fault of the opposite party and that amounted to deficiency in service on their part. The further case of the complainants is that the opposite party has admitted the short delivery and damage to the goods. The complainants also contended that a Surveyor had assessed the value of the damage and the shortage and the opposite party issued a damage certificate Ex. A4. According to the complainants, the opposite party had not settled the claim made by the 1st complainant the consignee. The 2nd complainant Insurance Company had settled the claim of the 1st complainant and the 1st complainant, in turn, executed a letter of subrogation and special power of attorney in favour of the 2nd complainant. On these grounds the complaints were filed for compensation and costs.

3. The opposite party contended that the short delivery and damage were due to the reasons beyond their control and the delivery certificate was issued to the 1st complainant to facilitate them to claim from the 2nd complainant. It was further contended that no consideration was paid by the 1st complainant to the opposite party. In these circumstances the opposite party was not liable to pay any amount to the complainants.

4. The District Forum held that there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party and the complainants were competent to maintain the complaints. It then ordered the opposite party to pay a sum of Rs. 14,424/- in O.P. 12/97; a sum of Rs. 28,385/- in O.P. 13/97; a sum of Rs. 39,214/- in O.P. 120/97 and a sum of Rs. 47,117/- in O.P. 121/97, with interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of the complaint till payment and a sum of Rs. 500/- as cost in each of the complaints.

5. Now in the appeals, the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant /opposite party contends that the complainants are not competent to maintain the complaints since they were not the persons who were entitled to file the complaints under the Consumer Protection Act. It is submitted that the services of the opposite party were admittedly availed of by M/s. Bharat Aluminium Company, Korba, Bilaspur. It is specifically stated in the complaint that the said Company had entrusted the consignments to the opposite party. It is not the case of the 1st complainant that they paid the transport charges to the opposite party. While so, during the arguments before us, they even conceded that the transport charges had been paid by the consignor M/s. Bharat Aluminium Company Limited. The appellant/opposite party has also produced before us a certificate dated 6.8.1998 which is said to be have been issued hy the said consignor M/s. Bharat Aluminium Company. This certificate is in their letter head and is purported to have been signed by the Deputy Manager (F&A). As regards this the respondent/ complainant would not say anything. From these facts

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

The interpretation of Section 2(1)(d) and Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, in determining who is a consumer and who has the right to file a complaint under the Act.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis