R.N. Mittal, President - This complaint shall dispose of Appeal Nos. 1 to 3 of 1991 which contain similar questions of law and fact. The facts in the case are being given from Appeal No. 1/91.

2. The complainant is a registered partnership firm with head office at New Delhi. On 2.12.1988 they booked ayurvedic medicines of the value of Rs. 67,979.10(Bill No. 590 dated 2.12.1988) from Ghaziabad to Patna for safe carriage, with M/s. North Eastern Carrying Corporation, the respondent, vide goods receipt No.

1303 of even date. The goods receipt was consigned to self by the complainant. It is alleged that the respondent was informed by the complainant that the goods were to be released to M/s. Acme Marketing Company, Patna(hereinafter referred to as M/s. Acme) when the latter had paid Rs. 67,979.10 the price of the goods to them i.e. the complainant and the goods receipt was presented by them. The freight of Rs. 4,134/- was to be paid by M/s. Acme.

3. The case of the complainant further is that M/s. Acme did not make the payment of the bill to them and consequently they informed the respondent vide registered letter dated 19.6.1989 that the goods should be rebooked from Patna to Samastipur and they should be informed accordingly. The respondent did not respond to the said letter. Again a letter was written but no reply to that letter was also received. Inspite of visiting their office and making repeated demands the goods have not been sent by them as desired by the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant cam~ to know that the consignment had already been delivered by the respondent to M/s. Acme or to someone else without the goods receipt, and thus they misappropriated the consignment either themselves or in conspiracy with M/s. Acme or others. It is, therefore, prayed that the respondent be directed to pay an amount of Rs. 67,979.10 the price of the consignment with interest@ 24% p.a. from 2.12.1988 till date to the complainant and an amount of Rs. 1,500/- as compensation for the inconvenience and mental tension suffered by them.

4. The complaint was contested by the respondent who inter-alia pleaded that the alleged amount was due to the complainant from M/s. Acme. The goods in dispute were delivered to M/s. Acme. with the consent of the complainant. It is further pleaded that it was the practice of the complainant to give instructions to the respondent on telephone or otherwise to deliver the goods without G.R. In the present case the instructions were received orally by the respondent from the complainant to deliver the goods to M/s. Acme and as per instructions the goods were delivered by the respondent to them. The respondent, therefore, was not liable to pay any amount to the complainant.

5. The matter came up for hearing before the District Forum and the learned Forum ordered the respondent to pay Rs. 32,979.18 with interest @15% p.a. from 2.12.1988 till the date of payment to the complainant alongwith Rs. 1,500/- by way of damages within one month of the date of the order. The respondent has come up in appeal against the said order to the State Commission.

6. The first contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the complainant is not a 'consumer' as no consideration for carriage of goods was paid by them to the appellant. We have duly considered the arguments but regret our inability to accept the same. The word 'consumer' has been defined in Section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act as follows:-

" 'consumer' means any person who,-

(i) xxx xxx xxx

(ii) hires any services for a consideration which has been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of such services other than the person who hires the services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned person;"

7. From a reading o