Mr. Justice E. Padmanabhan, President—The unsuccessful complainant in C. No. 129/97 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Pondicherry is the appellant herein.

2. Heard Mr. K. Palaniappan, Counsel for the appellant and Mr. M.V. Vaithilingam, Counsel for the respondents 1 and 2.

It is conceded that the consignment was entrusted to the respondents 1 and 2 and it was sent to the respondent No. 3 who had been impleaded subsequently. It is further conceded that the consignment reached the respondent No. 3. There is no dispute in that the consignment has reached the right consignee and intact.

3. It is admitted that the respondents 1 and 2 - the carrier have delivered the goods to the very consignee but without collecting the lorry receipt or way bill but after obtaining an indemnity bond as it was represented that the lorry receipt was lost in transit. Thereafter a legal notice was issued by the complainant/appellant to the common carrier dated 5.5.1997 pointing out that the carrier had shown leniency to the consignee who had omitted to pay the value of the goods to the consignor and that failure to insist for production of way bill or lorry receipt is a deficiency in