ADV. RAVI SUSHA, MEMBER. Complaint seeking compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant was one of the consumers of the opp.party. The 1st opp.party is registered office at Mumbay, the 2nd opp.party is your local office at Tamilnade and the 3rdopp.party is your branch office at Kollam. The complainant was working as a painting supervisor in Awadh, S.AL Ghamdi Est for Trading $ Contracting Wood $ Alluminums Industry in Saudi Arabia for the last 8 years. The complainant availed leave from his company and reached his home o n 10.2.2007 and his date of re-entry was on 10.6.07. But unfortunately he met with some heart disease and he underwent a by pass surgery in the Sree Ch9ithra Medical Center, Thiruvananthapuram and hence he could not go back to Saudi Arabia on the date fixed in his passport. So he applied for the extension and accordingly the complainant’s company granted extension.. One Mr. Sripathi, Saudi Arabia sent that extension paper through the 1st opp.party courier service and accordingly the complainant approached the 3rd opp.party the branch office of the 1st opp.party at Kollam on 12.11.2007 and the Manager said that the parcel is at Bombay and asked to go there and hence the complainant arrived at Bombay on 14.11.2007 for getting the parcel and also for stamping the Visa and the complainant reached your Bombay office on 15.11.2007 and he was waiting there till 7.30 P.M. and then the office of the 2nd opp.party said that the parcel is seen missing though the entry regarding the parcel is in the office computer. Immediate the complaint get a duplicate copy of visa from his Gulf Company through Fax on 20.11.2007 and made an attempt to stamp his visa but the authorities refused to stamp the same since it is a duplicate copy through Fax and the disappointed complainant returned from Bombay on 21.1.2007 and returned to his home on 22.11.2007. The complainant lost the job in his company at Gulf. After the treatment the complainant is in very financial stringency and a lot of debt to be discharged by him to different persons but now he is not having any source of income from anywhere and now the life of the complainant is in a disastrous stage and his future life is in danger. The complainant lost his job at gulf country for ever. He los his return flight charge for an amount of Rs.15,000/-. There is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complaint. The opp.parties 1 and 2 are filed version contending that the there is no privity of contract between the complainant and 1st and 2nd opp.parties. The 3rd opp.party is also a stranger to the above alleged transactions. The complainant cannot be termed as a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The complaint is bad for non-jointer and mis-jointer of parties. The individual who has been claimed by the complainant to have either entrusted the consignment or their courier company which allegedly had taken the consignment for onward delivery have not been made a party. Besides the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kollam is not having territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present complaint. The complainant has not produced the Airway bill by virtue of which the alleged consignment was entrusted to the complainant. Clause 6 of the terms and conditions mentioned in the Airway Bill also stipulates that the liability of the DHL Express [INDIA] Pvt. Ltd. for any consequential or special damage or any other indirect loss that may be incurred by the consignor including loss of profit, income, future business etc are not recoverable and could not therefore by claimed from the opp.parties. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the opp.parties prays to dismiss the complaint. Points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined. Ext. P1 to P4 are marked. No oral or documentary evidence by the opp.parties POINTS: In this case on 30.12.2008 an exparte order was passed against the opp.parties. Against the said order opp.parties filed appeal before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and the commission allowed the appeal on payment of cost and the case was remanded before the Forum for deciding in merit. Opp.party paid cost and the case was posted for evidence of the opp.parties. Even though the opp.parties filed chief affidavit, they did not examine any person from their side nor marked any document. Hence the chief affidavit filed from the side of opp.parties cannot be taken as evidence from their side. From the complainant’s side Exts. P1 to P4 are marked. Through Ext.P2 letter the opp.parties admitted that the parcel has been lost from the opp.parties and hence it was not delivered to the complainant. The main contention of the opp.parties is that there is no privity of contract in between the complainant and the opp.parties. From the evidence it is evident that the complainant is the beneficiary in the transaction. Hence the complaint filed by the complainant against the opp.parties is maintainable. The opp.parties failed to prove the contention stated in the version. Hence we are constrained to rely upon the evidence adduced from the side of the complainant. From the Exts. And evidence we are of the view that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. Hence the complainant is entitled to get relief. In the result the complaint is allowed. Opp.parties are directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation to the complainant. Opp.parties are also directed to pay Rs.1000/- as cost. The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dated this the 28th day of September, 2010. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. –Maniyan Pillai List of documents for the complainant P1. – Copy of Visa P2. – Letter dt. 19.11.2007 P3. – Returned flight ticket P4. – Advocate notice List of witnesses and documents for the opp.parties: NIL | 
