JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal against the majority judgment of the District Forum, Nainital whereby the complaint of the complainant was, dismissed while the President of the Forum has allowed the complaint. 2. In this case the case was Originally heard by the Bench consisting of the President and Male Member of the Forum. 'The President of the Forum vide his order dated 20.12.2003 allowed the complaint On this order Male Member Sh. B.S.-Dangwal did not sign. He wrote a separate order on 05.01.2004 much after the order of the President of the Forum and dismissed the complaint. On the judgment of the President, smt. Shashi Tandon, the Female Member endorsed on 17.07.2004 "I do not agree with this judgment". On the same date she endorsed on the' order of Sh. B.S. Dangwal “I, agree with this judgment". She however gave at separate judgment on 17.07.2004 holding that the complaint is not maintainable in-view of non-impleadment, of, the necessary party as also for want of notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. It appears that there was difference of opinion between the President and the Male Member of the Forum. The matter was referred to the third Member on her appointment on 17.07.2004. We do not want to go into this controversy, neither the parties preferred to raise' it that the judgment is valid or invalid or void because all the 3 persons have given separate judgments on separate dates, Both the parties argues the case on merits, therefore we preferred to proceed to hear the case on merits itself. 3. The complainant Baidyanath Ayurved Bhawan Ltd. had booked medicines form Haldwani to Bareilly The booking was on 20.08.1997, 24.08.1997, 01.04.1998, again on 01.04.1998, 17.02.1998, then again on 17.02.1998, then on 02.06.1998. It is surprising that even the booking of 20.08.1997 was not delivered, still the complainant went on booking for about 10 months. All the G.R.’s were endorsed to the Punjab National Banjk Bareilly. According to the complainant, articles worth Rs. 2,44,211.17/- were booked bout these articles were never delivered at Bareilly. The Stockiest were directed to approach Bareilly to take the delivery but he informed that the consignment has not reached there. In pare 6 of the complaint, It is alleged that a registered notice was given on 28.06.1999 but in spite of the notice nothing was heard from the opposite parties. The Stockiest were directed to approach Bareilly to take the delivery but he informed that the consignment has not reached there. In pare 6 of the complaint, It is alleged that a registered notice was given on 28.06.1999 but in spite of the notice nothing was heard from the opposite parties. hence a compliant was filed. 4. The opposite parties filed written statement and alleged at the consignment, was booked. All the bookings, are separate transactions. for each booking booking, there is separate cause of action. The delivery was to be made by, Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly. The complainant is not a consumer. The provisions of Section 10 of the Carriers Act have not been complied with. The opposite parties, are not common carrier but the common carrier is Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly, who has acknowledged the delivery of the books under G.R.’s in dispute. The Transporter has not been made party to the proceedings and the complaint is liable be dismissed. 5. Since the complaint has been dismissed by the majority view of the Learned Forum, therefore the majority view is the judgment of the Learned Forum. We have to examine whether that order is correct or incorrect. The first question is regarding the impalement of Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly. It is true that the complaint could not have been dismissed on. this ground rather the complainant should• have been directed to imp-lead Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly if it was a necessary party but the complainant very emphatically contested the case there that they have got no privities of contract with Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly, they will not imp-lead them party because there is no dispute between them and Navrang Transport Corporation. Bareilly but in our view this argument is not at all correct. In all the G.R.'s, it is specifically mentioned that delivery shall be made through Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly. Bareilly but in our view this argument is not at all correct. In all the G.R.'s, it is specifically mentioned that delivery shall be made through Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly. Since the goods are booked through the opposite parties, therefore the opposite parties are a party but if the delivery was to be made by Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly and if this transport corporation has received or not received the goods, the complainant also becomes the beneficiary of Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly by implication of law because services were to be delivered by Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly as well and the consideration has been given to the opposite parties at one point, whether it was to be shared by both the transporters or not is a different matter but relationship & privities of contract is definitely created between the complainant and Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly as well. We also agree that the bookings have been made with in a span of 10 months. Haldwani is not far away from Bareilly and in a period of 10 months delivery was not made, still the complainant went on booking the articles for continuous 10 months, is not understandable, although bookings are admitted. Secondly any prudent customer will stop booking if & when his first consignment is not delivered. We emphasize this point not for any other purpose but for the purposes that from the very first bilty, it is written that delivery shall be made through Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly but the complainant has been searching his articles, he got his reply from nowhere and still he went on booking the articles. It means that the entire allegations that they were searching the articles, they did not get them, appears to be manufactured for the purposes of this case. Otherwise when the first consignment is lost, thereafter nobody will book another consignment. At any rate the bookings are admitted on these different dates itself but if there way any deficiency in service, that is both from the opposite party as well as Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly but the complainant did not care to imp-lead Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly in spite of plea & objection by the opposite party, therefore definitely the complaint was bad for that reason. 6. 6. At any rate we could have remanded the case for fresh hearing after impalement of Navrang Transport Corporation, Bareilly but it was argued that the complaint itself could not have been filed without a notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. The earlier alleged correspondence between the parties cannot be said to be a notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. The complainant has tried to show us carbon copies of different letters but these letters are in no way notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act. We do not want to go into the technicality where the notice dated 28.6.1999 can be taken to be a notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act or not but we may take it as notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act for arguments sake. Then the last booking is dated 02.06.1998, although we are also of the view that for each booking, there was a separate cause of action and for each booking separate notices should have been given but even if it is taken that the last booking is the main cause of action, then also under Section 10 of the Carriers Act, it is specifically provided: "No suit shall be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of, or injury to, goods entrusted to him for carriage, unless notice in writing of the loss or injury has been given to him before the institution of the suit and within six months of the time when the loss or injury first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff." Thus what is mandatory is that notice should be given within 6 months of the time when the loss or injury first came to the knowledge of the plaintiff. The complainant did not give any writing on what particular date the non-arrival or non-delivery of the articles came to his knowledge but it is clear that from 20.08.1997 the booking was made & no delivery was being made. It is said that the complainant was informed that delivery shall be made within a week. He examined within 10 days but the delivery was not made. The allegations are such in para 4 of the complaint. It is said that the complainant was informed that delivery shall be made within a week. He examined within 10 days but the delivery was not made. The allegations are such in para 4 of the complaint. Therefore it is within 10 days of the booking that for the first time, it came in the knowledge of the complainant that the articles have not been delivered, therefore even if it is taken to be 15 days in each case, then for the first delivery, notice should have• been given within 6 and a half months of the booking in the case of 20.08.1997, likewise within 6 and a half months of the booking of 24.08.1997 and similarly for the last booking, notice should have been given within December 1998 or first and second week of 1999 but in this case the alleged notice has been given on 28.06.1999 after more than a year of the last booking. What is mandatory that such a notice should be given within 6 months, not within a year. 7. First this notice dated 28.06.1999 does not appear to have been filed before the Learned Forum. It was for the first time produced before us at time of hearing of the arguments but still this notice cannot be taken to have been served. On the notice it is written that "not met, the shop is found closed, the addressee is not available, therefore it is returned." This notice cannot be taken to have been served. It is not necessary under Section 10 of the Carriers Act that notice should be only issued but what is necessary is that notice is -given. "Given" means "Served". There was no service, therefore the complaint is bad' for want of notice. 8. The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that such a notice was not necessary because this was a consumer dispute and so is the view of the President of the Learned Forum as well but in our view this is not correct opinion. "Given" means "Served". There was no service, therefore the complaint is bad' for want of notice. 8. The Learned Counsel for the complainant argued that such a notice was not necessary because this was a consumer dispute and so is the view of the President of the Learned Forum as well but in our view this is not correct opinion. We have recently decided Appeal No. 185 of 2003, Manager, Transport Corporation of India and Others v. Kshetriya Sri Gandhi Ashram and Another by a detailed judgment dated 01.03.2005, in which we have specifically held that notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act is mandatory even in the proceedings before the Consumer For a. In this judgment, we have also held : "Then another argument was that no notice has been issued to the appellants and therefore the present claim does not lie. In this respect the ruling reported in 1 (2003) CPJ 280 (NC) Delhi Assam Roadways Corporation Ltd. v. B.L. Sharma was referred, wherein on the basis of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision. it has been gel that notice of loss or injury is mandatory before institution of suit. Notice was not issued., therefore the complaint was said not to be maintainable. We can refer in this context, the case decided by the Notational Commission in Branch Manager Economic Transport Organization v. M/s. synco Textiles reported in 1992 (1) CPJ 154 (NC), wherein it has been gel that no notice U/S 10 of the Carriers Act is necessary tot file the complaint. Again the National Commission in the ruling reported in 1994 (1) CPJ 210 (NC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Venus Traders has held that the complaint is maintainable even if no notice U/S 10 of the Carriers Act was given. However the decision of 2003 CPJ in Delhi Assam Roadways is on the basis of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision and therefore is blinding on us.” 9. The Learned Counsel for the4 opposite party referred before us the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1461, Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. However the decision of 2003 CPJ in Delhi Assam Roadways is on the basis of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision and therefore is blinding on us.” 9. The Learned Counsel for the4 opposite party referred before us the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 2000 Supreme Court 1461, Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Birla Yamaha Ltd. In this ruling, it has been specifically held : “ The principle regarding the liability of a carrier containe4d in section 9 of Carriers Act namely, that the liability of a carriers is that of an insurer and that in a case of loss or damage of goods entrusted, to the carrier the plaintiff need not prove negligence, are applicable in a proceeding before the consumer Forum, It cannot be said that the term suit used in Section 9 of Carriers Act does no extend to proceedings before Consumer Forum. the term suit has not been defined in Carriers Act not is provided in the said Act that the term suit will have the same meaning as in Civil P.C. Therefore the term suit has to the understood in the ordinary dictionary meaning. In the sense, term suit is a generic term taking within its sweep all proceedings initiated by a party for valuation of a right vested in him under law. It is true that a proceeding before Consumer Forum is ordinarily a summary proceeding and in an appropriate case where the commission feels that the issues raised are too contentious to be decided in summary proceedings, it may refer parties to Civil Court. That, 'however, does not mean that proceedings before the Consumer Forum is to be decided by ignoring the express statutory provisions of Carriers Act in a proceeding in which a claim is made against a common carrier. A proceeding before the Consumer Forum comes r within the sweep of term 'suit. It has been held in this ruling that proceedings before Consumer Forum are also judicial proceedings and for all purposes 'suit', therefore the provisions of Section 10 of the Carriers Act shall fully apply of the proceedings before the Consumer' Forum as well The same view has been Confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court ins the ruling reported in AIR 2004 Supreme Court 5147, Arvrnd Mills Ltd. v. M/s. Associated Road vays. In this ruling as well, it-has been held: "The fact that the remedies under the Consumer Protection Act are in addition to and not in derogation of any other law does not mean that the rights under the Carriers Act can be exercised; except in accordance with the manner provided under the Act. Sections 9 and 10 form an integral scheme by which a common carrier is fastened with liability irrespective of proof of negligence Merely because the procedure under the Consumer Protection Act is summary in nature does not if any way warrant, the abrogation of the requirement to serve notice under Section 10 of the Carriers Act before fastening any liability under that Act on the carriers Therefore such a notice was necessary in this case as well. Such a notice has not been served within stipulated time on the carrier therefore the complaint is liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. 10. We do not want to go into other details of the case in view of these defects which are incurable, therefore we are of the view that the majority judgment of the Learned' Forum is correct. We uphold the decision of the majority Bench of the Learned Forum and dismiss the appeal of the' appellant. We also do not agree with the observations of the President of the Learned Forum. This Commission is happy that the two Hon'hle Members of the Learned Forum have given a very wise and legal judgment correctly appreciating the facts of the case in the light of the case law pronounced by the H6n'ble Supreme Court. This appeal has got no force and is liable to be dismissed. ORDER The appeal is hereby dismissed. Costs shall be easy.