JUDGMENT As per S.C. Vyas, J. (President): - This appeal is directed against order dated 4-8-10, passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Bilaspur (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short) in Complaint Case No. 244/98, whereby the appellant herein, who was the Transporter, has been directed to pay Rs. 48,185.80 p., on account of non-delivery of goods booked for transporting, to the complainant along with Rs. 1,500/- as compensation and also to pay cost of litigation Rs. 500/-. 2. As per case of the complainant, before District Forum, he is wholesale dealer, of medicines and appellant/OP is a Transport Company. The respondent/complainant used to supply medicines to other Traders on their orders. On 31-3-08, he handed over medicines valuing Rs. 48,185.80 p. in a carton to the appellant/Transporter for delivery to Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Bhanpuri, Raipur (C.G.). Later on Emcure Pharmaceuticals informed that the medicines have not been received by the Firm. Then the Transporter was contacted, who assured that within a couple of days, the goods will be delivered to the addressee at the destination. When again information was sought from Raipur Office of the Transporter/appellant, then it was informed that the goods have been sent back to Bilaspur. When Bilaspur Office was again contacted, then no satisfactory reply was given and no action was taken. In this way, deficiency in providing transport service was committed by the Transport Company and so consumer complaint was filed before District Forum, seeking compensation of Rs. 48,185.80 p., as cost of the goods as well as Rs. 1,000/- as compensation for mental agony and Rs. 1,000/- against cost of litigation. 3. The appellant herein, in reply averred that the complainant/ respondent was not his consumer, because the firm had not handed over any goods or material to delivery the same to some place. The grievance has been raised in the case on the basis of receipt No. 13690, dated 31-3-08, but the goods were sent through that receipt by one Premium Medical to Hmcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and the respondent/complainant Premium Medico Surgico had not availed any service of the Transporter for transporting any goods, so this complaint is not maintainable. It has also been averred that the goods booked by Premium Medical were duly transported & delivered to its destination. It has also not been admitted that the carton was containing medicines valuing Rs. It has also been averred that the goods booked by Premium Medical were duly transported & delivered to its destination. It has also not been admitted that the carton was containing medicines valuing Rs. 48,185.80 p. On the basis of aforesaid pleadings, it was prayed that the complaint be dismissed. 4. District Forum after having considered the rival contentions of both parties and the documents available on record, allowed the complaint by the impugned order. 5. We have heard arguments advanced by both parties and perused the record of the District Forum. 6. The first contention of Counsel for the appellant is that the goods were booked by one Premium Medical, whereas the complainant Firm is Premier Medico Surgico. He has drawn our attentions towards the receipt available on record, regarding booking of the goods with the Transporter. To counter this argument, Counsel for the respondent/complainant submitted that there is no Firm like Premium Medical and the goods were booked by the respondent/ complainant Firm and that is why the original receipt was given to the respondent/complainant. The employees of the appellant/Transporter might have misnamed the complainant in the receipt issued by them, but it was the complainant who delivered the goods for transporting, to the appellant/ Transporter and none else. Photocopy of the receipt was filed before District Forum and the original has been produced before us for our satisfaction. From the original receipt, it appears that though the name of the sender has been written as Premium Medical, but the name of the person, to whom the goods was to be delivered, is the same Emcure Pharma Ltd., Bhanpuri, Raipur. Along with the receipt, another document, having the title Purchase Entry, was also filed by the complainant/respondent before us and that document, clearly contains the name of the complainant, on the left corner, at top and also the name of Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Raipur. It also shows that the goods were valuing Rs. 48,185.80 p., which was the amount of the bill issued to the Emcurc Pharmaceuticals Ltd., and naturally this Purchase Entry must have been sent along with the goods to the consignee and must have been delivered to the Transporter also that is why the bilty No. 13690 as well as Purchase Entry both are bearing seal impression of the appellant/Transport Company. After having gone through these documents, we do not have any doubt in our mind that the complainant was the person who booked carton of medicines with the appellant/Transporter for delivery at Emcure Pharmaceuticals Ltd., Bhanpuri, Raipur and nobody else. 7. Next contention of Counsel for the appellant is that the terms and conditions of transportation, printed on the overleaf of the bilty were binding upon the complainant and as per its first conditions, non-delivery information was required to be given within 15 days to the Transporter and no claim was to be entertained after 15 days, but we find that so far as terms, which have been printed on the overleaf of the bilty are concerned, they do not bear signature of anyone and the complainant had not agreed with these terms and, therefore, was not bound by these terms. Otherwise also the cases of deficiency in service are covered by the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and a complaint is very well maintainable with the prescribed period under the Act and if any lesser period has been mentioned by any party in its printed document, then such terms cannot be said binding upon the complainant, who has otherwise got right to file complaint for non-delivery of goods against the Transporter. So, we are not impressed with the argument that some terms have been printed on the overleaf of the bilty and as per those terms the complaint was not maintainable. 8. In the affidavit of the complainant it has been stated that goods were booked by it for delivery at Bhanpuri Raipur, but it never reached to the destination and never delivered to the consignee, we gave opportunity to the Transporter to show us, by filing any document, whether the goods were properly delivered to the destination or not, but even after providing sufficient opportunity nothing has been produced before us. In these circumstances, there appears nothing on the basis of which the statement of the complainant can be disbelieved. 9. In view of the aforesaid, we find that the District Forum has come to a right conclusion and the impugned order calls for no interference. The appeal, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. No order as to cost.