ORDER 30.1.2012 - Complainant had sent one parcel packet, containing one pair of suit, one pair of pant and shirt and one serwani, to his nephew, in New Delhi, through O.P. No.1 on 7.12.2009 vide consignment No. K37722594. The said parcel packet weighed 2 Kg 700g for which complainant paid the courier charge of Rs.430/- to O.P. No.1. The said parcel packet was sent for the purpose of marriage ceremony on 15.12.2009. But the said consignment was not delivered. The message was confirmed by his nephew on 15.12.2009. Due to non-delivery of the said parcel packet, complainant purchased another bridal outfit for Rs.30,000/-. He complained before O.Ps., but in vain. Finding no other way complainant filed a case for redressal before the Forum below. O.Ps. appeared and filed their written version. It was submitted that complainant had never intimated O.Ps. regarding the non delivery of the said parcel packet. It was further submitted that as complainant had not informed the O.Ps. regarding non-delivery of the consignment at that time, hence nothing can be done by filing this case as it was contrary to provision prescribed u/s.1 0 of Carriers Act. Hence, the case is liable to be rejected. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, learned District Forum allowing the complaint thereby directed O.Ps. to pay Rs.15,000/- to the complainant for the loss of consignment. Further, O.Ps. were directed to pay Rs.2,000/- towards mental agony, harassment and cost of this case within two months from the date of receipt of this order failing which interest @ 8% per annum shall be chargeable over and above all the ordered amount. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Forum below, O.P. No.1 filed this appeal. When the matter was called for hearing, nobody appeared for the appellant although the name of Mr. D.P. Dhal, learned counsel appeared in the cause list. We have heard Mr. J. Panda, learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the record, the impugned judgment and order along with citations filed by learned counsel for the appellant. Undisputedly, complainant/respondent had sent one parcel packet, weighing 2 Kg 700g for delivery to his nephew in New Delhi, through appellant on payment of Rs.430/- towards consignment charge. The said consignment was not delivered to his nephew. Thereafter complainant filed a complaint case before the Forum below. Undisputedly, complainant/respondent had sent one parcel packet, weighing 2 Kg 700g for delivery to his nephew in New Delhi, through appellant on payment of Rs.430/- towards consignment charge. The said consignment was not delivered to his nephew. Thereafter complainant filed a complaint case before the Forum below. It was contended by appellant that complainant had not complied with the provision as laid down u/s 10 of Carriers Act, 1865. Section 10 of the Act provides that no suit (or complaint) could be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of goods, unless a notice in writing, of the loss, had been given to the carrier before the institution, but within six months of the time when the plaintiff (or complainant) came to know about the loss. The appellant contends that the respondent was aware of non delivery of the consignment on 15.12.2009, but did not intimate appellant. It further contended that in pursuance to the summons issued by the learned District Forum, the appellant had appeared and filed petition on 18.9.2010 to dismiss the said complaint case since the respondent had not complied the provision stated in Sec.10 of Carriers Act, 1865. Reliance is placed on the decision of Supreme Court in Arvind Mills Ltd, v. Associated Roadways, (2004) 11 SC 545 : 2004 CCJ 805 (SC), to contend that the complaint is barred without notice under Sec.10 of the Act. Section 10 of the Act requiring notice, is extracted below: "10. Notice of loss or injury to be given within six months. - No suit shall be instituted against a common carrier for the loss of, or injury to, goods (including containers, pallets or similar article of transport used to consolidate 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." Section 10 requires a notice in the manner set out therein, for initiation of a proceeding against a common carrier for loss of goods entrusted for carriage. The object of the Section is to put the carrier on notice about the claim in respect of the loss or damage to the consignment so that it can make good the loss occasioned. The object of the Section is to put the carrier on notice about the claim in respect of the loss or damage to the consignment so that it can make good the loss occasioned. But the instant case is a matter of non-delivery of the said consignment. The requirement relating to notice within six months in Section 10 will not apply to a claim based on such non delivery. In fact Section 10 does not use the word 'non-delivery' of goods, but uses the word 'loss of, or injury to, goods'. A case of 'non-delivery' will become a case of 'loss' of consignment, only when the common carrier informs the consignor/consignee about the loss of the consignment. In this case, the consignment was entrusted to the appellant on 7.12.2009 and to deliver the same on 15.12.2009 in New Delhi. But it was not delivered. Respondent informed appellant, who denied taking any action for such non-delivery. In such circumstances, when the goods are not delivered, there is a deficiency of service. In view of the above observation, we are of the opinion that learned District Forum has rightly awarded and we uphold the same. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.