The central legal point established in the judgment is the determination of consumer status and liability for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act.

ORDER

Anupam Dasgupta, Presiding Member - This revision petition is against the order dated 6.7.2009 of the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, the State Commission ) in First Appeal No. 1741 of 2008. By this order, the State Commission dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 31.7.2008 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, I, Jaipur (in short, the District Forum ).

2. The petitioner was the opposite party (OP) before the District Forum. The complaint against the OP was filed by the respondent/complainant related to deficiency in service in delivering the partly damaged consignment of medicines sent by the complainant to a consignee in Patna. The complainant alleged that out of the 2 consignments of medicines, 11 cases in each consignment valued at Rs. 1,79,722 were delivered to a consignee in a damaged conditions. This was acknowledged by the local representative of the OP. The complaint was contested by the OP mainly on the ground that the complainant being a commercial entity and could not be termed as a "consumer" under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, 'the Act'). In addition, the allegation of damage to a part of the consignment was also denied.

3. After considering the pleadings and hearing the parties, the District Forum held that the complainant was indeed a consumer of service provided by the OP in terms of the definition under Section 2(1)(d)(ii), it also held that 11 crates of medicines in each of the two cartons were delivered in a damaged condition valued each at Rs. 1,79,722. Accordingly, the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay to the complainant Rs. 1,79,722 with interest @ 8% per annum from 13.6.1999 till payment and also cost of Rs. 2,500 within one month from the date of the order failing which the rate of interest would be enhanced to 12% per annum.

4. We have heard Mr. Shankar Kumar Jha, learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner/OP and Mrs. Geeta A. Kumar, learned Counsel on behalf of the respondent/complainant.

5. The original record of the Fora below was also gone into. There is a clear endorsement dated 13.06.1999 on the reverse side of the docket No. BH 39992 issued by the OP under the signature of one Mr. Sonal Shrivastava, Senior Executive (Sales) mentioning the damage to 11 cases of medicines. Likewise, docket No. BH 39990 there is a similar endorsement of the same person on the same date certifying the damage to 11 cases/cartons. There is no material to hold that these two endorsements were not made by the aforesaid representative of the petitioner/OP. Thus, the fact of the delivery of 22 cartons valued at Rs. 1,79,722 is sufficiently established.

6. As regards, the question of status of the complainant is a "consumer", the definition of a consumer service as it existed at the relevant time (1999) did not include a person availing of service on payment of consideration even if it was for commercial purpose. This exclusion was brought in by an amendment to the Act which came into effect from 15.3.2002.

7. In view of the foregoing, we find no jurisdictional error or illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the State Commission and affirming the order of the District Forum. The revision petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost.