Dinesh Singh, Member—Heard learned counsel for the revision petitioner – partnership firm. Perused the material on record.

2. The case of the complainant, in brief, as stated in para 1 of the District Forum’s Order dated 11.01.2018, is as below:—

The complainant is a partnership firm involved in the business of inter-alia, export of sea-food to various destinations which is the only source of livelihood for its partners. On 01.11.2016 the complainant had booked for air shipment of a consignment of live lobster weighing 279 kgs from Cochin to Hong Kong via Kuala Lumpur. The consignment was to be air lifted from Cochin on 01.01.2016 to Kuala Lumpur and from there to Hong Kong on 02.11.2016. The value of the consignment was INR 4,08,202/-. After clearance of Indian customs the consignment was airlifted on 01.11.2016. But the consignment which was highly perishable was not airlifted to Hong Kong on 02.11.2016 and therefore the live lobsters were perished causing a loss of Rs. 5,57,741/- to the complainant. The complainant therefore seeks a direction to the opposite party to reimburse the value of the consignment which works out to Rs. 5,60,000/- and also to pay compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- and costs.

(para 1 of the District Forum’s Order)

(as per the translated copy furnished

by the revision petitioner)

[The (correct) date of booking of consignment flowing from succeeding paras of the District Forum’s Order is 01.11.2016. Evidently, therefore, 01.01.2016 in para 1 quoted above is a typographical error.]

3. The District Forum vide its Order dated 11.01.2018 dismissed the complaint, holding that the complainant firm was not a ‘consumer’ under the Act 1986:—

3. The documents produced by the complainant would support the case of the complainant that the complainant had sent a consignment through the opposite party to Hong Kong with a halt at Kuala Lumpur for shipment in a different flight. However, due to the failure of the Air Asia Cargo System from 5 a.m. the cargo team had difficulty in locating the shipment manually on time, and therefore the consignment could not be airlifted from Kualal Lumpur to Hong Kong on 02.11.2016. The complainant raised a claim on 08.11.2016 against the opposite parties and as per Exbt. A8 demanded compensation therefore.

4. As the opposite party did not appear to contest the matter the learned counsel for the complainant pressed for an order allowing the complaint in the absence of any challenge. Ongoing through the documents marked in evidence, it is clear that the complainant had based a claim on a commercial transaction and, to us, it appear that the complainant will not come within the purview of a consumer as defined u/s 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act. The learned counsel for the complainant brought to our notice that the decision reported in 2009 KHC 4189 State Commission. Would support the case of the complainant in as much as the inclusive definition of person U/s 2(1)(m) calls for an extensive and enlarged meaning and therefore a company is also to be treated as a person.

5. In this case, leaving apart the question as to whether the complainant would be a person or not, it is very clear that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ within the definition of Section 2(1)(d)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986. Since the air shipment was in connection with a commercial transaction the complainant cannot raise a consumer dispute through the complaint. It is true that the complainant had made an averment that the income derived from the export business is used for the livelihood of partners of the complainant firm. There is evidence to substantiate such a contention raised in the complaint. There is nothing in evidence to show that the only income of the partners of the complainant firm is from this partnership business and that they have no other means for their livelihood. Therefore we find that the subject matter of the complaint is commercial in nature and the complainant fail