BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION : HYDERABAD.

F.A.No. 821 OF 2020 AGAINST ORDERS IN C.C.10/2017 DISTRICT CONSUMER COMMISSION, RANGA REDDY Between:

M/s GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo and Aero Space Engineering Ltd., (Formerly Known as GMR Hyderabad Air Cargo Logistics Pvt., Ltd., and prior to that as Hyderabad Menzies Air Cargo Pvt., Ltd.,)

Office at, Air Cargo Terminal, Rajiv Gandhi International Airport, Shamshabad, Ranga Reddy District-500 108, Represented by its Authorized Signatory CEO Mr. Saurabh Kumar.

………..Appellant/ Opposite Party And:

M/s Excell Media Private Limited, Rep. by Manager (Administration), P.Rama Krishna, S/o P.Jaya Ramudu, Office at Quinn House, 8-2-268/N/28/A/2, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad.

………Respondent/ Complainant Counsel for the Appellant/ Opposite Party : M/s. A. Venkatesh Counsel for the Respondent/ Complainant: Sri I.V. Radha Krishna Murthy HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE DR.G.RADHA RANI, PRESIDENT HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER – (NJ)

FRIDAY, THE 06th DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX ******* Order :

PER HON’BLE SMT. MEENA RAMANATHAN, MEMBER (NON-JUDICIAL)

1. The appeal is filed u/s 41 of Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Opposite Party aggrieved by the order of District Consumer Commission, Ranga Reddy, dated 09.09.2020 in CC 10/2017 and prays this Commission to allow the appeal with costs and may be pleased to pass such other order or orders which may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief averments of the complaint are that the complainant is a registered Company and in the business of providing internet services. As they received an order from Sri Chaitanya Educational Committee, they placed an order to import „one fiber port + 7 10/100 mm RJ 45 port Managed Ethernet Switch, SM, SF, 20 km SC Connector, numbering 110 pieces and the model number for the said products were EX.110 Mbpsd-1F70- M‟, from Shenzhen FH, Net Optoelectronics Company Limited in China. The complainant paid $ 2750 equivalent to INR Rs.1,66,623/- vide invoice dated 11.05.2014 and availed the services of Fedex for the transportation of the goods.

The gross weight of the consignment was 88 kgs. and net weight 81 kgs. Payment was made to the Company in China and the consignment was shipped through Fedex Delivery Service. On 19.05.2014 the Fedex authorized clearance agent-Jeena and Company sent an email to the complainant indicating the shipment had arrived at Hyderabad and to provide the documents for clearance.

3. The Shipment consisted of 04 pieces of 88 kgs. but after clearance, one box was missing from the ware house of opposite party. Although the customs clearance was done on 24.05.2014 the complainant Company was surprised to note that one box was missing and this was communicated to Menzies Air cargo-Opposite party. Due to the deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant claims he has suffered a cumulative loss of Rs.7,90,684/- and has filed the present complaint seeking redressal.

4. The opposite party filed their written version with the following submissions:-

(a) The transaction between the complainant and this opposite party is commercial. The pleadings of the complainant makes it clear that the complainant does not fall under the definition of “Consumer” as the services of the airlines were availed for a commercial purpose.

(b) The consignment was entrusted to jet airways on 11.05.2014 and went missing on 19.05.2014. The complaint was filed only on 01.10.2016 which is beyond the period of limitation and as such is liable to be dismissed.

(c) The complainant had entrusted the consignment to Fedex for transportation from Shenzhen China to Delhi and thereafter by Jet Airways to Hyderabad. The contract is between the complainant and Jet Airways who has not been made necessary party for the adjudication of the present dispute and as such the complaint is liable to be dismissed.

(d) The transaction between the parties is governed by Montreal