SRI.K. VIJAYAKUMARAN, PRESIDENT. This complaint for seeking compensation costs etc. The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant on 14.10.2004 entrusted with the 2nd opp.party a consignment weighing 4 Kg. and worth Rs.20,000/- addressed to one N. Suresh, Bimpure, Nagaland. A sum of Rs.400/- was paid as delivery charges for which a the receipt was issued to the complainant. The consignment was not delivered to the addressee . The complainant thereupon approached the 2nd opp.party. But no action was taken by the 2nd opp.party. Thereafter the complainant issued an advocate notice for which a reply was received intimating that steps are being taken to deliver the consignment to the addressee. Even after that the consignment was not delivered and hence the complaint. The 2nd opp.party filed a version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. It is true that the complainant entrusted with this opp.party a consignment which was received and C. Note No.003097689 was issued. The consignment was forwarded to the Kollam office for onward transmission to the Regional Office Kochi The complainant has not entrusted any consignment worth Rs.20,000/- On 14.10.2004 itself, the consignment was forwarded to the Super Franchise Office Kollam from where it was forwarded to the Kochy Regional office. The complaint was attended timely and the information was forwarded to higher UPS immediately . There is no deficiency in service on the part of the 2nd opp.party. The complainant has no cause of action against the 2nd opp.party. Hence the 2nd opp.party prays to dismiss the complaint. Opp.party 3 and 4 who were subsequently impleaded have filed separate version contending that the complaint is not maintainable. The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act. It is not true that the complainant entrusted articles worth Rs.20,000/- to the 2nd opp.party. As per the statements given by the complainant to the 2nd opp.party the value of article is only Rs.1700/-. The complainant has not declared which are the item in the parcel and without doing that he has no right to file a complaint. As per the rules the list showing the articles in the parcel has to be declared. But in the parcel produced by the complainant such declaration was absent. This service availed by the complainant is for commercial purpose and therefore the complainant has no right to file this complaint. Immediately on knowing about the complaint, these opp.parties have taken necessary action for the delivery of the parcel. But it was known that the parcel after receipt at the destination disappeared. Thereafter the opp.party offered reasonable compensation. The amounts claimed by the complainant are exorbitant. The opp.parties are always ready and willing to pay the amount declared by the complainant. Hence these opp.parties also 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.party 2. Reliefs and costs. For the complainant PW.1 is examined and Ext. P1 to P5 are marked. For the opp.party DW.1 and 2 are examined. Ext. D1 is marked. Points: The case of the complainant is that he entrusted a parcel with opp.party 2 for delivery to a friend of his at Nagaland evidenced by Ext.P1 but the same was not delivered to the addressee by the opp.parties which is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.parties. According to the complaint the value of the articles in the parcel was Rs.20,000/- whereas according to the opp.parties the value of the articles as declared by the complainant is only Rs.1700/- which is evident from Ext. D1 declaration filed by PW.1 himself. There is no dispute that the parcel received by the opp.parties as per Ext.P1 was not delivered to the addressee. According to the opp.parties the above parcel was received by their office at Nagaland but thereafter the same could not be traced. In the version itself the opp.parties have agreed to pay the value of the articles as declared by PW.1 as per Ext.D1 but PW.1 was not amenable for the same. As a matter of fact there is no material other than the oral testimony of PW.1 to show that the value of the articles entrusted with opp.party 2 comes to Rs.20,000/- The items or the value of the articles in the parcel entrusted with opp.party 2 as per Ext.P1 is not stated in the complaint or in the affidavit or Ext.P2 Advocate notice. In cross examination PW.1 admitted that the articles in the parcel were fancy items such as chain, bungles etc.. But the number and types of the item are not forthcoming. Ext. D1 clearly shows that their value as declared by PW.1 himself is Rs.1700/-. Had the articles worth Rs.20,000/- naturally he we would have stated the value as Rs.20,000/- . The burden to establish that the value of the articles booked as per Ext.P1 was Rs.20,000/- is on the complainant which the complainant failed to discharge. As pointed out earlier the opp.parties have stated in their version itself that they are ready to pay the value of articles as per Ext. D1. When the matter was taken for settlement in the adalath also the opp.parties offered Rs.3000/- for which also the complainant was not amenable The complainant has no case that those articles have any antique or any other value than what is shown in Ext. D1 . It is to be noted that the liability of opp.parties as per the stipulation in Ext.P1 is Rs.100/- only and we feel that the offer made by the opp.parties to settle the matter was reasonable. The non-delivery of the parcel though can be termed as deficiency in service in the circumstances of this case it cannot be said that it is due to any willful negligence on the side of the opp.party. On considering the entire evidence in this case we feel that the amount of Rs. 3000/- offered as compensation by the opp.parties is just and reasonable and we are inclined to allow Rs.3,000/- as compensation . Point found accordingly. In the result, the complainant is allowed in part, directing the opp.parties to pay the complainant a sum of Rs.3,000/- as compensation and Rs.500/- towards costs. The order shall be complied with within one month from the date of this order Dated this the 16th day of July, 2009. . I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – P. Ajioth Kumar List of documents for the complainant P1. – Receipt. P2. – Advocate notice P3. – Postal receipt P4. – Postal acknowledgement P5. – Reply notice of Ext. P2 List of witnesses for the opp.parties DW.1. – Manoj DW.2. –Nandakumar List of documents for the opp.party D1. – Photostate copy of Declaration. | 
