The facts of the case in brief are that the Complainant Ministry of Environment and Forest North Eastern Regional Office, Shillong represented by the Joint Director and Head of Office, Dr. S.C.Katiyar, had taken Security Services from M/S Indian Ex Service League, Meghalaya, Shillong herein after called as OP for the safety and security of the office premises with effect from 02.02.2005 till date of filing of this complaint. In February 2008 the Complainant received 4 numbers of HCL Computers from Headquarter, New Delhi. On 20.02.2008, the security personnel on duty Shri Kerphi Pde reported missing of 2 numbers of LCD Monitors. An FIR was filed with the Laitumkhrah Police Station, Shillong. On 20.02.2008 the Police arrested one of the employee of Complainant s Office namely Ranjit Pathak, Peon who was kept under suspension with effect from 20.02.2008. The court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate disposed off the case in view of insufficient evidence and freed Ranjit Pathak. On 28.06.2008 afternoon another incident of theft happened where 2 numbers of CPU was reported missing by the same security guard on duty. FIR was also filed on the same day. The Complainant on 02.07.2008 requested the OP to compensate for the lost of computers since the purpose of acquiring security services from the agency is to avoid any loss of government property. Since the OP failed to respond to the request of the Complainant, it filed a complaint before this Forum, hence this case. Show cause notice was issued to the OP who in its reply mentioned that the security guards were questioned thoroughly and the agency found total lack of office security. OP in reply to Complainant s letter dated 02.07.2008 stated that as per their investigation the office of the Complainant has no security standing orders. The security guards have only been instructed to enter names and other details of the visitors in the register kept at the gate. In reply, the claimant has mentioned that it would be totally reluctant to blame the office security system for the incident and had the OP observed any lapses in the security system then it should have been brought to the notice of the Complainant for strengthening the same. It also mentioned the condition No.4 of Standing Orders for security guards issued by the OP which mentioned The guard on duty will keep strict vigilance on the Government property and building. Any suspicious movement noticed in the Complex/Office will be immediately reported to the Secretary or any Officer s in charge of the Complex/Department. Therefore the Complainant insisted that it is the responsibility of the OP to pay compensation for the loss of Government property as incidences of theft have occurred when their security guards were on duty. The witnesses were examined from the Complainant. Complainant s witness Shri R.L.Sanga, CW No.1, Deputy Conservator of Forest mentioned that the OP were engaged to watch the Government property and the building office of the Complainant and the security guards on duty were the custodian of the keys to all the rooms especially during office hours. In his cross examination, he mentioned that during his tenure in the office, he does not remember issuing any written instructions to be issued to the security guards employed in the office. He also admitted that there are no orders given to the security guards to check the baggage taken out of the office. He also admitted that the security instructions issued do not specify any laws that if any loss occurs it will be compensated by the Security Provider. Both parties were heard. The Complainant reiterate the submissions made earlier and mentioned that it was the prime responsibility of the OP to safeguard the Government property and hence they should make good the loss happened due to theft. The OP on the other hand insisted that they have been telling the Complainant for issuing specific standing security instructions by the Complainant which amongst other things should include a gate pass system giving authority to the guards to physically check the materials being taken out from the office. However, this system was not enforced and anyone from the office also should have carried away the missing articles since the security guards were not authorized to check as to who was carrying what and on whose authority. They also mentioned that in the first case of theft which happened on 20.02.2008 the case was disposed off on 05.09.2008 by the CJM and the person arrested was released citing lack of evidence. In the second case of theft which occurred on 28.06.2008 the investigation did not reveal much especially on the aspect of involvement of the security guard in the same. We have perused the documents and other materials evidences on records and observe the following 1. The case/theft which occurred on 20.02.2008 was disposed off for lack of evidence against the security guard, by the Court of the CJM on 05.09.2008 by accepting the final report submitted by the police before the court. 2. With regard to the second case/theft the Superintendent of Police East Khasi Hills, in his letter dated 03.01.2009 to the Complainant has mentioned that several attempts to identify and arrest the culprit were made but there was no clue of the same till then. 3. Though the OP emphasized upon issuing security instructions by the Complainant especially on checking of the baggage coming out of the office but the instructions were never issued by the Complainant. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that it cannot be conclusively proved that the theft occurred due to deficiency in service by the OP. The police investigation has also indicated the non involvement of the security guards in the act of theft. The Complainant has not acted swiftly to issue robust instructions to the security guards with regard to checking of the baggage/articles coming out of the office. Therefore, according to this Forum, the Complainant has not been able to establish the deficiency in service by the OP as envisaged under Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The case accordingly disposed off with no relief to Complainant. Both the Parties to bear their own costs.