SRI.R. VIJAYAKUMAR, MEMBER. The complaint is filed for getting the value of the Door Lock Set Rs.2015/- compensation Rs.5,000/- and cost Rs.500/- The averments in the complaint can be briefly summarized as follows: The complainant availed courier service from the opp.party by entrusting a parcel containing one set of Lamoree Door Lock set worth Rs.2015/- sending to Sai Enterprises XL – 8598, Gopal Building, T.D. Road, Kochi. Opp.party accepted that they will deliver the parcel without any delay and with proper care. But the parcel was not delivered to the addressee. The complainant informed the non delivery to the opp.party. But the opp.party willfully evade from answering for the same. On 24.5.06 the complainant sent a legal notice to the opp.party and it was not responded by the opp.party. The act of opp.party amounts grossnegligence and deficiency in service. Hence the complaint. The opp.party filed version contending that the complaint is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The consignment was entrusted to the opp.party for delivery to the said addressee. At the time of entrustment the complainant has not disclosed the content of the consignment. No such consignment containing Lamoree Door Lock set was entrusted to the opp.party. The consignment entrusted by the complainant was forwarded to the Kochi Office, which is the delivery station. From there, it is the duty of Kochi Office to deliver the consignment to the consignee. So the Kochi Office also to be impleaded. Hence the complaint is bad for mis-joinder. There is no negligence or deficiency on the part of opp.party. In the case of delayed delivery or non delivery the liability of this opp.party is limited only upto Rs.100/- The liability clause is very well manifested in the courier receipt itself and the complaint also has been signed in the receipt. The complainant is not entitled to get more relief. Therefore complaint shall liable to be dismissed with cost. The complainant filed affidavit PW.1 is examined. Exts.P1 to P4 were marked. DW1 was examined. Based on the contentions the points that would arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the complaint is bad for mis joinder. 2. Whether there any deficiency in service 3. Compensation and cost Points:1 It is the duty of the opp.party to deliver the consignment to the consignee. In this case there is no consumer relationship with any other person. No need of a stranger shall be impleaded. So the complaint is not bad for misjoinder. Points II and III The learned counsel for opp.party argued that the content of parcel is not declared in Ext.P1 and bill of Door Lock not produced. At the time of cross examination he put the question to the complainant that “Ext.P1 YedlgA Door Lock Set Llnk\ Luv\vf\ tr\rk dlnlR dqjujh\h PW.1 answered “Th\h”Lb\bsr tqkfj ilb\bjujgkr\rjh\h; The complaint has also stated that the value of consignment was not stated in Ext.P1. In the cross examination DW.1 stated that “Parcel Lu]krrfk cIJdgj]kr\SelXtr\fk\ item Llsnr\rkA ijh tr\flsnr\rkA akxxi SgDe\semkf\flykn\mk\ TO Sdc\cjH Lb\bsr SgDe\semkf\fjuj}jh\h From this deposition we could find that the complainant and the opp.party were not tried to disclose the item or value of the consignment. As the complainant insisting that the consignment is a door lock set, the burden of proof is upon the complainant. He could lnot unsuspeciously prove that the item was Door Lock Set and its value was Rs.2015/- It is an admitted fact that the consignment was not delivered to the consignee. It is the duty and responsibility of the opp.party to deliver the consignment to the consignee. In the cross examination the learned counsel for the complainant put the question that “consignment concerned addressee ]k\ Lu]n\smegjeoGnalu Kf\f\gilpjfIA rjb\bX]h\Sh? a. Lsf LYedlgA Lu]lfjgkr\rlH Lf\ deficiency in service Lh\Sh @ Lsf The opp.party already admitted that opp.party has committed deficiency in service.. We think that this is clear a case for deficiency in service. For the quantum of compensation, counsel for opp.party produced one citation of the decision by the National Commission reported in IV [2007] CPJ 165 {NC. In the light of that decision the opp.party’s liability being restricted only up to the extent of the amount stated in the terms contained in the receipt. As per the receipt produced by the complainant the liability of in this case is limited only up to Rs.100/- . For all that has been discussed above we find that there is deficiency in service on the part of the opp.party. The point found accordingly. Hence the complaint is allowed. The opp.party is directed to pay Rs.100/- along with an interest at the rate of 12% from 18.3.2006 till the date of payment of the amount. The opp.party is further directed to pay compensation Rs.500/- and cost Rs.500/- The order is to be complied with within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Dated this the 28th day of February, 2008. I N D E X List of witnesses for the complainant PW.1. – Kabeerkutty List of documents for the complainant P1. – Receipt P2. – Notice P3. – Postal receipt P4. – Acknowledgement card List of witnesses for the opp.party DW.1. V. Sanker: | 
