A complainant must establish payment for services to qualify as a consumer under the Consumer Protection Act; failure to do so results in dismissal of the complaint.

ORDER

NARESH KATYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

Unsuccessful complainant has filed this appeal and challenged legality of order dated 13.11.2017 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-Karnal (In short “District Consumer Commission”) in complaint case No.99 of 2014, vide which its complaint has been dismissed.

2. Factual matrix: Complainant-company engaged OPs for getting ‘courier service’. On 27.04.2012, it approached OPs for delivering one courier bearing Sr. No.287436148 of ‘Track On Courier Pvt. Ltd.’ from its Karnal office to Ghaziabad office, allegedly containing 50 important files, customers’ cheques and other important/valuable documents. Said courier was agreed to be delivered within 1-2 days, but after waiting sufficiently for more than 6-7 days, it (complainant) came to know that subject courier has/had not been delivered. Due to its non-delivery; complainant suffered huge financial loss and OPs allegedly refused to compensate it. By alleging deficiency in service against OPs; complainant filed consumer complaint to pay it Rs.12,81,120/- on account of damages so suffered due to negligence of OPs; to pay it Rs.50,000/- for mental pain, agony, harassment and loss of time and also to pay Rs.11,000/- for litigation expenses.

3. OPs raised contest. In defense of OP No. 1; objections with regard to maintainability of complaint, locus-standi of complainant, it having not come with clean hands and suppressed true and material facts; complaint being bad for mis- joinder and non-joinder of parties; jurisdiction of District Commission and complainant being not consumer have been taken. It is pleaded that complainant gave sealed pack courier and same was sent to its original place at same time and answering OP No.1 has not known about alleged 50 important files, cheques, important/valuable documents. Complainant booked consignment with OPs on 24.07.2012 at Karnal for Rohtak as per electronic record of OPs and not for Ghaziabad as alleged. This consignment was delivered on 28.07.2012. Proof of delivery was provided to complainant, soon after delivery of consignment. No financial or other loss has occurred to complainant as alleged. Answering OP No.1- Franchisee of OP No.2 instituted Recovery Suit for Rs.47,469/- against complainant for its outstanding dues, which complainant owed to it. Instant complainant has filed as a counter blast to said recovery suit and to avoid making payment.

4. OP No. 2 in its separate defense has towed the line of defense of OP No. 1 and prayed for dismissal of complaint.

5. Parties led evidence oral as well as documentary. On analyzing the same; complaint has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 13.11.2017 passed by learned District Consumer Commission-Karnal holding that complainant is not a consumer, as it has not paid any consideration and not entitled to compensation. Feeling dissatisfied, complainant has filed this appeal.

6. We have orally heard learned counsel for parties at length. With their assistance record of learned District Consumer Commission has also been perused.

7. On behalf of appellant/complainant, it is urged that findings of learned District Consumer Commission are erroneous. Courier packet containing cheques, important/valuable documents was admittedly booked by complainant from Karnal Office of OP/respondent No.1. Its destination place was Ghaziabad and not at Rohtak. It is urged that courier packet was not delivered at place of its destination at Ghaziabad. These facts have not been analyzed in a proper legal perspective. Due payments were made by complainant to OPs, after raising bills by OPs and verification by complainant. It is urged that filing of Civil Suit or Decree passed in civil suit will not frustrate legal right of complainant to institute consumer complaint. On these submissions, acceptance of appeal has been urged.

8. Per contra, learned counsel for OPs, in one voice, have supported impugned order dated 13.11.2017 of learned District Consumer Commission-Karna