The petitioner / complainant purchased a Palmscan and Pachymeter machine from M/s. Shardul Enterprises, Nasik. Since the said machine was not working properly, it was allegedly sent by them to the seller for repairs. The seller M/s. Shardul Enterprises allegedly repaired the machine and entrusted the same to the respondent for -2- delivering it to the petitioner / complainant. The machine however, was not delivered to the petitioner / complainant as the consignment got lost. Being aggrieved he approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint, seeking compensation form the respondent. 2. The complaint was resisted by the respondent which took a preliminary objection that there was no relationship of consumer and service provider between the complainant and them. They also took another preliminary objection that M/s. Shardul Enterprises was a necessary party to the consumer complaint. It was further stated in the reply that as per the conditions of the consignment note, they were ready to pay the five times the freight charges as compensation. 3. The District Forum having allowed the complaint, the respondent Shri Maruti Courier Services Pvt. Ltd., approached the State Commission by way of an appeal. The State Commission vide impugned order dated 16.6.2017 allowed the appeal and consequently dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved the complainant / petitioner is before this Commission by way of this revision petition. 4. The onus was upon the petitioner / complainant to prove that the consignment entrusted to the respondent by M/s. Shardul Enterprises contained only a Palmscan and Pachymeter machine. M/s. Shardul Enterprises which allegedly entrusted the aforesaid machine to the -3- respondent was not impleaded as a party to the consumer complaint. More importantly, neither any affidavit from M/s. Shardul Enterprises was filed nor any witness from the aforesaid firm was produced to prove that the consignment entrusted by the them to the respondent contained a Palmscan and Pachymeter machine. In the absence of impleadment of Shardul Enterprises as a party to the complaint and absence of any evidence from the aforesaid consignor there is no escape from the conclusion that the petitioner / complainant has failed to prove that the consignment entrusted to the respondent contained nothing except Palmscan and Pachymeter machine. In fact, there are surrounding circumstances which creates suspicion about the goods entrusted to the respondent being the machine purchased by the petitioner / complainant from M/s. Shardul Enterprises. A perusal of the receipt issued by the respondent to the petitioner / complainant while carrying the goods on 09.7.2014 shows the weight of the consignment to be 50 gms. On the other hand, the receipt issued by the respondent to Shardul Enterpriss in respect of the lost consignment shows its weight to be 700 gms. I fail to appreciate how the machine which weighed 50 gms when sent for repairs could have weiged 700 gms i.e. 14 times its initial weight when it is discharged back for onward transportation. Moreover, no description at all of the goods was given in the consignment note. No insurance in -4- respect of the said consignment was obtained. If M/s. Shardul Enterprises had entrusted a costly item such as Palmscan and Pachymeter Machine, the contents of the consignment ought to have been declared or in the alternative, insurance ought to have been taken against the loss or damage to the said goods. I therefore, have no hesitation in confirming the finding of the State Commission that the petitioner / complainant has failed to prove that the goods entrusted by M/s. Shardul Enterprises to the respondent contain nothing except Palmscan and Pachymeter machine. I therefore need not examine the other contention of the respondent that the petitioner / complainant is not its consumer, the consignment having been entrusted to it by M/s. Shardul Enterprises. 5. The revision petitioner is therefore dismissed, with no order as to costs. | 
