Mr. Justice D.R. Vithal Rao, President — In this complaint, the complainant has sought delivery of consignment covered under Invoice No. Plastic 29/89-90 dated 22.3.90.

2. The complainant averred that as per ledger extract of Opposite Party No. 1 from 1.4.89 to 18.9.90, one consignment under bill of lading No. 92 dated 31.1.90 valued at Rs. 90,000/- was not delivered since one year 10 months inspite of repeated demands. Opposite Party No. 1 is stated to be the clearing agent of the complainant, who had purchased the said item under the consignment from Opposite Party No. 3. Opposite Party No. 2 is stated to be the transporter of the said item from Bombay to Bangalore.

3. The complainant, as referred above, sought the delivery of the said consignment from the Opposite Party.

4. This complaint came to be field on 17.2.92.

5. Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 filed their version and averred that the alleged consignment was delivered to the complainant and produced the original consignment note, the consignee copy as per Ex. R. 1. Opposite Parties also averred that the complaint was not tenable as it involved question of alleged fraud and forgery to be considered.

5. Subsequent to the filing of the version by the Opposite Parties the complainant filed a memo which reads as under:

"The complainant submits that the delivery note produced by the respondents under which the goods alleged to have been delivered to the complainant, is forged. The seal affixed thereon, purported to be of the complainant, is not the seal of the complainant-Company. The signature thereon is also not affixed by the Managing Director of the complainant-Company. It has been forged.

It is prayed that appropriate action be initiated against the respondents for forging the Delivery Note/Goods, Consignment Note and using the seal of the complainant-Company initially which in fact is not that of the complainant-Company. The case be put on trial immediately today itself."

Thereafter the complainant filed the reply statement to the version of the Opposite Parties, and averred that the Opposite Parties had forged the complainant's signature to make it appear that the receipt of the goods had been acknowledged by the complainant.

6. During enquiry the complainant filed his affidavit and got Exs. P. 1 to P.15 marked in evidence. Opposite Party No. 2 filed the affidavit and got Exs. R.1 to R.9 marked in evidence.

7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the complainant. We perused the pleadings of the parties and the material placed on record. Ex. R.I is the consignment note, a consignee copy dated 25.8.90, that shows the signature of the complainant with a seal of the complainant. This consignee copy Ex. R.1 came to be produced by the Opposite Parties. It is the case of the complainant that his signature on Ex. R.1 was forged by the Opposite Parties. It is evident from the memo filed by the complainant on 3.11.92 and the reply statement given by him on 1.9.93. Ex. R.2 is the receipt dated 20th September, 1990 for having paid the transport charges to Opposite Party No. 2 by Opposite Party No. 1 by way of a cheque for a sum of Rs. 2360/-.

8. It is clear from this material on record that the case set up in the complaint is a fraud and forgery regarding which no investigation could be done by Redressal Forums.

9. The National Commission in N. Shivaji Rao v. M/s. Daman Motor Company & Ors., reported in Vol. I (1993) CPJ 88 (NC), had observed thus:

"It is evident from above that it is not a case of supply of defective goods or of deficiency in rendering service. Prima facie it is a case of fraud and cheating as alleged by the appellant-complainant himself. Consequently, the factum of fraud and cheating would have to be established first before a Consumer Forum can arrive at a finding of deficiency in service. We agree with the view expressed by the State Commission that the Consumer Protection Act and the machinery there under cannot be effectively utilised for determining complicated que