M.THANIKACHALAM J. - (1.) The opposite parties are the appellants.2. The complainant/respondent, functioning as Manging Director of Nilgiris, District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, was transferred to Chennai, and therefore his car RC and Lorry Receipt bill, were sent to Madras, by Managing Director of Nigiris District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, through 2nd opposite party, under consignment No.39474211 on 4.5.2001, which was not delivered. The request through phone, as well as through notice also failed to yield any result, thereby the opposite parties not delivering the consignment, had committed deficiency of service, proceeded by negligent act, thereby compelling the complainant to apply for duplicate RC book, incurring monetary loss.3. The contention of the opposite party, that they have delivered the consignment is incorrect. The opposite parties, instead of tracing out the missing RC book, and delivery receipt, making false allegations, aggravated their non-performance, for which the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.25000/-, as compensation for mental agony, in addition to a sum of Rs.5000/- incurred on account of road tax penalty, etc. Hence the complaint.4. The opposite parties, admitting the entrustment of the consignment, at Ooty office on 4.5.2001, resisted the case, contending that the consignment was delivered to the consignee on 5.5.2001 itself, which was also informed upon complaint, that they have not committed any deficiency, as incorrectly and falsely alleged, thereby praying for the dismissal of the complaint.5. The District Forum, despite materials available, to prove that the opposite parties would have delivered the consignment, which is in a way admitted by the complainant, though subsequently they have alleged false statement, has come to the conclusion, that there was no specific token of acknowledgement, on the receipt of the consignment by the consignee, and the act of non-delivery will amount to deficiency. In this view, a direction has been issued, against the opposite parties, to pay a sum of Rs.5000/- towards payment of road tax penalty, and incidental expenses, as well to pay a sum of Rs.5000/-, towards damages, for mental agony, as per order dt.19.5.2009, which is impugned on various grounds, by the aggrieved opposite party.6. The complainant, who was working as Managing Director of Nilgiris District Cooperative Milk Producer Union, Udagamandalam, owned a car, bearing Regn. No.TN-43 7052. He was transferred from Udagamandalam to Chennai, as Manager (Planning), Aavin. After the transfer, as inferred from the complainant, since not clear, at his request, the Managing Director of Nilgiris District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, consigned the RC book of the above said car, alongwith lorry receipt, to Chennai Aavin address, through the 2nd opposite party on 4.5.2001, and the consignment No. was 39474211. According to complainant, the consignment was not delivered, thereby not only that caused mental agony, but also had caused monetary loss, in obtaining duplicate RC. Thus complaining, a consumer complaint was filed, ended in partial success, despite stiff resistance, based upon documents.7. By going through the order of the District Forum, we are of the considered opinion, coupled with scanning of the document, available before us, that the District Forum had committed deficiency, in granting an award in favour of a person, who had averred a false case, even as disclosed by his document. The opposite party, had produced documents, which evidenced the fact of delivery, which was so casually ignored and we do not know the reason behind it, and we assign our reasons, to upset the finding of the District Forum. 8. The consignment was booked on 4.5.2001. Only on 1.4.2003, roughly after two years, as seen from Ex.A1, a notice emanated from the complainant?s lawyer, accusing as if the consignment was not delivered, for which immediately on 17.4.2003 itself, the opposite party had issued a reply, informing that a detailed reply will be given, on perusal of the document. As seen from Ex.B1, even on 1.6.2001 itself, i.e., before Ex.A1 notice, the opposite parties informed the Managing Director of Nilgiris District Cooperative Milk Producers Union, that the consignment has been delivered on 5.5.2001, obtaining the seal and signature from the office concerned. It is not the case of the complainant, that the consignment was sent to the individual name viz. the complainant, whereas the complaint is elegantly silent about the person, name and the addressee. It appears from the pleadings, that the consignment was dispatched by Udagmandalam office, to Madras office, and that is why in Ex.B1, they have stated that the consignment has been delivered on 5.5.2001, obtaining seal and signature from the office concerned. In aid, our attention was drawn to Ex.B3, i.e., daily report of service (probably), regarding the delivery of the courier article. This document has revealed, that the consignment No.39474211,ws delivered to the addressee, and the office also affixed its seal, and someone has signed. This document has not been challenged, which is supported by affidavit. This being the position, it is unfortunate, or unwarrated, we would say even, on the part of the District Forum to say, that no acknowledgement was obtained from the opposite party, and this kind of finding would suggest, the District Forum has not read the document at all, which is further supported by other documents also. Unless the documents consigned were received by the complainant, there would not have been any question of loss or misplacement, anywhere by the complainant, therefore if really the complainant or his office, to which address the consignment was sent, had not received the RC book, certainly the complainant, or the office should have lodged the complaint, before the police or before the authority, concerned forthwith, for which we find inconsistent evidence, and some of the documents support the case of delivery, as evidenced by Ex.B3 also.10. In Ex.A9, we find two letters, emanated from the complainant, to Inspector of Police, Madhavaram dt.2.11.2011. In the first letter, it is reported, the consignment sent by courier was neither received by the complainant, nor by his personal clerk. Therefore, the complainant requested the police, to trace out the consignment No. 39474211, containing the RC book, or issue a certificate of non-traceability, in order to obtain duplicate RC book. In the 2nd sheet of Ex.A9, it is said by the same complainant, viz. D.M. Kunju, "I lost my RC book of Maruthi 800 car, Regn. No.TN-43-7052 on 8,.11.2001, at Moolakadai, while coming to Madhavaram Milk Colony". Now we should recall the reply given by the opposite parties, which they have sent. The consignment was delivered to the addressee on 5.5.2001, thereby showing, after the receipt alone, if at all as per the letter, the complainant would have lost the same on 8.11.2001, for which we do not understand, how the opposite party could be held responsible. Based upon this report, the Inspector of Police, GII, MM Colony, also issued a certificate, wherein also he has stated, that the complainant had lost the RC book "while he was traveling in his car, from Moolakadai to Milk Colony". The above letters are in accordance with the reply dt.25.6.001, issued by the opposite parties, as evidenced by Ex.A11, where they have stated, that the consignment was received by the office of Manager (Planning) Aavin Illam, Madhvaram, on 7.5.2001, giving receipt No. also as 903746, which is in accordance with Ex.B3. From the above records, it is crystal clear, that the consignment sent by MD, Udagamandalam, to the Manager (Planning), Madhavaram, should have reached, their hand on 7.5.2001, and if the office of the complainant had misplaced or the complainant had lost it elsewhere, as reported in the complaint to the police, as indicated by the police, in the certificate, there is no question of negligent act or deficiency in service, on the part of the opposite party, which was not at all considered, and a casual order was written, as if everyone comes to the consumer forum, should be given some relief, which should be deprecated. For the above said reason, the appeal should be allowed with cost, and the complaint also should be dismissed with cost, but we refrain to do so, considering the fair stand taken by the opposite party, and the erroneous order passed by the District Forum, thereby relieving the complainant from cost, dismissing the complaint alone. For the above said reasons, the appeal is to be accepted.11. In the result, the appeal is allowed, setting aside the order of the District Forum in CC.No.18/2003, dt.19.5.2009, and the complaint is dismissed. There will be no order as to cost throughout. Registry is directed to handover the Fixed Deposit Receipt, made by way of mandatory deposit, to the appellant, duly discharged.;