Surinder Kumar Sharma complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 requiring the opposite parties to pay the claim of Rs.22924/- for financial loss and to pay Rs.50000/- as compensation for mental tension, harassment and inconvenience with costs of the complaint. <br /> 2. The complainant averred in his complaint that he does the business of brining spare parts of electronic goods from Delhi and supplying these in the market of Kotkapura and adjoining towns to earn his livelihood. On 5/1/2007 he purchased some parts of electronic worth Rs.14420/- from Natrajan Electronics Chandni Chowk Delhi vide bill No. 354 dated 5/1/2007. The complainant booked these articles in the shape of a parcel weighing 28 Kg. with the opposite party No. 3 the agent of the opposite party No. 2. They charged Rs.504/- for delivering the parcel at Kotkapura through the opposite party No. 2 agent of the opposite party No. 2 at Kotkapura. The parcel did not reach the complainant for two days so the complainant approached the opposite party No. 1 on 7/1/2007 to inquire about the cause of non delivery of the parcel and opposite party No. 1 told that parcel had not yet receive. On 9/1/2007 when the complainant again approached the opposite party No. 1 they informed that the parcel had been delivered at Faridkot by mistake. After two hours the parcel was shown to the complainant but he was surprised to see that it was opened and most of the articles were missing. So he refused to take delivery of the parcel and asked the opposite party to inform its head office and make good the loss suffered by the complainant. After that the complainant approached the opposite party No. 3 at least 6 times but they did nothing to make good the loss suffered by the complainant. It is deficiency in service and trade mal practice on the part of the opposite parties. He suffered financial loss to the tune of Rs.22924/-. He is also entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/- for mental agony, inconvenience and harassment. Hence the present complaint. <br /> 3. The counsel for complainant was heard with regard to admission of the complaint and vide order dated 9-2-2007 complaint was admitted and notice was ordered to be issued to the opposite parties. <br /> 4. The opposite party No. 3 was not appeared in the forum despite service and summons so opposite party No. 3 was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 24/4/2007. The opposite party No. 1 appeared on 24/4/2007 but failed to appear after that and was proceeded against exparte vide order dated 21/5/2007. The opposite party No. 2 appeared through Sh. J.S.Dhillon Advocate and filed written reply in which it is submitted that there is no privity of contract between the opposite parties and complainant. The complainant has not delivered impugned parcel nor paid any charges to the answering opposite parties. No cause of action under the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act has arisen in favour of the complainant. He has not suffered any damages. The complainant has no locus-standi or authority either in law or otherwise. It is admitted that one parcel was received by answering opposite party from M/s French Express New Delhi on 5/1/2007. The said parcel was offered for delivery to the consignee but the person available at the given address refused to take the delivery thereof so the deliveryman brought the parcel back to the office. When no one came to take the delivery the parcel was called back to Delhi and was returned to M/s French Express. Neither the opposite party nor any of its employee has opened the parcel and removed any articles therefrom. Unless and until one takes the delivery only thereafter he can allege that certain articles were missing from the parcel. So there is no deficiency in service on the part of the answering opposite party. So they are not liable to pay any damages or compensation to the complainant. The complaint is not maintainable as false and frivolous. The complainant has not suffered any loss. If it is established that there is an element of deficiency of services the liability of the opposite party is limited to Rs.100/-. Hence the complaint be dismissed with costs. <br /> 5. Both the parties wanted to lead evidence to prove their respective pleadings and proper opportunity was given to them. The complainant tendered in evidence his affidavit Ex.C-1, copy of bill dated 5/1/2007 Ex.C-2, copy of courier receipt Ex.C-3, copy of letter written by Lahori Electronics Ex.C-4, copy of bill dated 5/1/2007 Ex.C-5 and closed the evidence. <br /> 6. In order to rebut the evidence of the complainant the opposite party No. 2 tendered in evidence affidavit of Arvind Varshney son of Late Shri K.C. Varshney Ex.R-1 and closed their evidence. <br /> 7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have very carefully gone through the affidavits and documents on the file. Our observations and findings are as under.<br /> 8. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the opposite parties have misappropriated electronic articles contained in the parcel booked by complainant from Delhi to Faridkot. He suffered damages of Rs.22924/-, the complainant is entitled to above noted amount on account of causing financial loss to the complainant and compensation to the tune of Rs.50000/- for mental agony, physical harassment and wastage of precious time and energy of the complainant. <br /> 9. Learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 submitted that the opposite parties are not liable to make payment of any amount. Complainant is not consumer of the opposite parties. Complainant has not suffered any damages. Complainant cannot take benefit of his own wrong. <br /> 10. From the perusal of the file it is made out that the complainant purchased electronic goods worth Rs. 14,420/- from Natrajan Electronics, Chandni Chowk, Delhi on 5/1/2007. These goods were sent in a parcel by the complainant from Delhi to Kotkapura through the opposite parties vide a receipt Ex.C-3 after charging courier amount of Rs.504/-. The complainant have not accepted the parcel at Kotkapura which stood opened so it was returned back to the office of the opposite parties situated at Delhi. The opposite parties held inquiry on the instance of the complainant vide application Ex.C-4 received by opposite parties on 2/2/2007 and found that the 9 Kg. electronic goods were missing out of 28 Kg. booked by the complainant at Delhi to be sent to Kotkapura but it stood opened in the transit and only 19 Kg. weight goods were received by the opposite parties back at Delhi. Therefore the opposite parties caused loss of the goods of Rs.6500/-. The opposite parties have not placed on the file any record if the remaining goods have been returned to the sendor. So the opposite parties are held to have caused loss of Rs.14420/- to the complainant. In the receipt Ex.C-3 there is a mention of dispatch of the parcel containing electronic goods. The parcel remained in custody of the opposite parties and they have misappropriated the same. It is not a case of loss goods during transit. <br /> 11. In view of the above facts and circumstances the authorities Bharathi Knitting Company Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. reported in (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases-704, Airpak Couriers (India) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. S. Suresh reported in I (1994) Consumer Protection Judgments-52 (NC), Herman Mit Singh Vs. Speedman Express & Anr. reported in II (1999) Consumer Protection Judgments-216, Best Electrodes Industry and Anr. Vs. M.P. Audhogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Rewa) Ltd. & Ors. reported in 2002(1) Consumer Protection Judgments-1 (NC), M/s Blazeflash Courier (P) Ltd. Vs. M/s Pifzer Ltd. Appeal case No. 47 of 2004 of Chandigarh Union Territory Commission and Smt. Seema Gupta Vs. M/s Blaze Flash Couriers (P) Limited Appeal case No. 188 of 2004 of Chandigarh Union Territory Commission relied upon by the opposite parties have different fact and circumstances then that of the case in hand is not helpful to the opposite parties. Even it is not a case of loss of a letter or documents rather it is the loss of goods which have been valued properly so complainant is entitled to the actual damages caused by the opposite parties to the complainant. <br /> 12. In view of the above noted facts and circumstances it is held that the complainant is the consumer of the opposite parties. Complainant has not done any wrong by booking the goods with the opposite parties. This is clear cut deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties. So the complaint filed by the complainant is accepted. Accordingly the opposite parties are directed to pay value of goods, compensation on account of harassment, mental tension and loss of business to the tune of Rs.20,000/- with litigation expenses of Rs.500/- in total Rs.20,500/- within one month from the date of the receipt of the copy of this order, failing which they shall pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the amount of Rs. 20,500/- from the date of the decision of the complaint till realization of the amount. Copies of the order be sent to the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room. <br /> Announced in open Forum:<br /> Dated: 21/8/2007<br />