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