JUDGMENT S.S.Satheesachandran, President. - These appeals arise from complaint cases numbered as O.P.No.285/2002 to 289/2002, O.P.295/2002 to 299/2002 and O.P.Nos. 653/2012 to 663/2002, altogether 21 complaint cases, on the file of the Consumer Disputes Redressel Forum, Ernakulam for short the "Forum". The Forum by common Order dated 11/2/2013 dismissed all the complaints, and aggrieved the common complainant in all the cases have filed the above appeals from the respective complaint cases. 2. In short the case of the common appellant, hereinafter referred to as the complainant, that he is a rubber dealer and manufacturers and he had entrusted with the common first respondent, hereinafter referred to as the first opposite party a transporter and common carrier, goods for transporting to Culcutta and to deliver the same to the consignee, the common second respondent. The consignment was handed over for transporting with the original consignee copy of the consignee copy of lorry receipt. In cases where the bill amount is discounted through a bank it is treated as the consignee and till the amount is remitted by the person to whom the consignment is sent it should not be delivered. The bank endorses the lorry receipt in favour of the consignee after he pays the value of goods. The person to whom the goods are delivered has to obtain the consignee copy of the lorry receipt from the bank after remitting the amount in the bank to get delivery of the goods. The transporter who is entrusted with the goods along with the original consignee copy and copy of the lorry receipt has to ensure that the goods are delivered to the addressee where the bill amount is discounted by the bank only after the consignee produces the receipt from the bank endorsing the payment received for delivering the goods. The first opposite party discarding the stipulation in the lorry receipt released goods to unauthorised persons without getting the consignee copy of the lorry receipt or any authority from the bank to which the discounted bill was forwarded. The bank which had discounted the bill thereupon realised the entire sum from the complainant with interest and thus he had to suffer heavy loss on account of the deficiency in service committed by the transporter, first opposite party. The bank which had discounted the bill thereupon realised the entire sum from the complainant with interest and thus he had to suffer heavy loss on account of the deficiency in service committed by the transporter, first opposite party. Complainant therefore filed the complaints with respect to each transaction covered over the transportation of goods in 21 cases separately demanding sum of the goods transported with 18% interest from the date of delivery of goods with compensation of Rs.50000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand) and cost of Rs.2000/- (Rs.Two thousand) in each case. 3. First opposite party resisted the claim filing a version challenging the maintainability of the complaint on the grounds of long limitation, absence of jurisdiction and non issuing of notice u/s 10 of Carriers Act. It also contended that the negotiations of the documents was only a financial arrangement between the consignor and his bank without notice to the transporter, and in the direct delivery of consignment there was no deficiency in service. Second opposite party after receiving notice remained absent and was treated as exparte. 4. Though common trial proceeded in all complaints together treating the complaint O.P.No.285/2002 as the main case examining complainant as PW.1 and exhibiting A1 to A9 series for the complainant and DW.1 to DW.4 and exhibiting of B1 to B25 for the opposite parties and marking of X1 and X2 which were produced on notice by 3 parties, the relevant documents over rd transportation of goods in connected complaint cases were separately exhibited in such cases through PW.1 the complainant. The forum below appreciating the materials produced by both sides held that the complaints are maintainable repelling the challenges raised that the complaints are barred by limitation, that the forum below lacked jurisdiction and that non issue of notice under Carriers Act was fatal. However, accepting the contentions raised by first opposite party transporter, the forum below thereafter concluded that the arrangement between the complainant and his bank over negotiations of the documents involved in the transportation of goods and collection of discounted bill amount from the consignee were without the knowledge of transport operator and as such direct delivery to the consignee by the transporter cannot be considered as deficiency in service. In that view of the matter all the complaints were dismissed. Aggrieved by the common order of dismissal of complaints, complainant has preferred these appeals. 5. In that view of the matter all the complaints were dismissed. Aggrieved by the common order of dismissal of complaints, complainant has preferred these appeals. 5. We heard the counsel on both sides and perused the records. 6. We notice that both sides have adduced plethora of evidence to establish their respective case and the forum below, perhaps, annoyed by the enormity of materials and evidences "piled upon" as given expression to in its Order imputed in these appeals, proceeded with the enquiry. On merits of the case opining "that these complaints ought not have been filed before this forum, and the complaints of this nature involving proceedings prolonging for years together should not have been admitted in the first instance." The forum below thereafter examined the material point raised in the complaints as to whether there was deficiency in service by opposite party and concluding the same against the complainant dismissed the complaints. We may also point out that the forum below expressed the view as stated above over the entertainability of complaints after negativing the preliminary objections raised by opposite party questioning jurisdiction of the forum to entertain the complaints on the grounds of limitation, territorial jurisdiction and bar under the Carriers Act. We need only state at this stage after having a careful scrutiny of the pleadings and documents produced by both sides, that the forum below lost sight of the fact that the material point in issue as to whether there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party over the goods of complainant transported through it for delivery depended on the consignment note and IBI Rules produced by opposite party and nothing else. We shall advert to the same after considering some of the preliminary objections raised by opposite party challenging the maintainability of complaints which had been found against by the lower forum. Objections raised by opposite party should have been decided in its favour and the complaints ought to have been dismissed as not entertainable, is the argument advanced by the learned counsel for opposite party to support the Order of dismissal passed in the complaints on merits in their favour. 7. Maintainability of the complaint was challenged by opposite party contending that complainant is not a consumer since he hired service of opposite party for commercial purpose. 7. Maintainability of the complaint was challenged by opposite party contending that complainant is not a consumer since he hired service of opposite party for commercial purpose. Complaints are barred by limitation, the forum below lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaints and they are also barred by the provisions of Carriers Act are some of the preliminary objections challenging the maintainability of complaints. The Forum below repelled the challenge questioning the status of complainant as consumer holding that the transactions involved i.e. transportation of goods under the services availed by the complainant from opposite party on payment of charges occurred during the period 1998 to 1999 and therefore the status of complainant has to be governed as defined under the Act before amendment to Section 2 (d) of the Consumer Protection Act under Act 62/2002. The status of complainant as consumer has to be determined as defined under the Act before commencement of Act 62/2002 is unassailable. So far as services availed covered by Section 2(d)(ii) of the Act addition of the words" but does not include a person who availed such services for any commercial purposes" were brought into the Act only by Act 62/2002, which came into effect on 15.3.2003. Concededly all the complaints in the present case had been filed in 2002 much before the above amendment under Act 62/2002 came into force and as such the status of complainant as consumer required to be determined only with reference to definition of Consumer in relation to Section 2(d)(ii) as under its pre amended definition. Viewed in that angle and analysed in that perspective it has to be concluded that complainant has the status of consumer with respect to the transactions involved to file complaints imputing deficiency of service against opposite party transporting agent. 8. We do not find any merit in the challenge raised on the ground of limitation. The complaints have been filed with petitions for condonation u/s 24 A of the Act and the forum below exercising its discretion condoned the delay and entertained them. Opposite party had challenged that Order filing appeal before the State Commission and, then, with liberty to them to raise such challenge before the forum in the event of final order being given against them, appeal was disposed of. Opposite party had challenged that Order filing appeal before the State Commission and, then, with liberty to them to raise such challenge before the forum in the event of final order being given against them, appeal was disposed of. The Forum below taking a view that it is not proper to consider that question again since it would amount to reopening of its previous order on the question of limitation, negative the challenge. The view taken by the forum below is patently erroneous. When the appellate court disposed the appeal with observation as noted above, naturally, when complaints are considered on merits the question of limitation required to be looked into again irrespective of the earlier order passed on the petitions filed u/s 24 A by the complainant. Be that as it may, after looking into the materials, we find that the opposite party has not succeeded in pointing out that the discretion exercised by the forum below to condone the delay involved was not proper. When the Act has empowered the forum with the discretion to condone the delay in entertaining a complaint filed beyond the period of two years and where such condonation has been allowed unless and until it is shown that the discretion was exercised improperly, challenge over condonation cannot be entertained and accepted. In the present case opposite party has failed miserably to show any circumstance that the forum below had wrongly or improperly exercised its discretion conferred u/s 24 A of the Act in condoning the delay involved in filing the complaints. 9. There is absolutely no merit in the challenges canvassed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and bar under Carriers Act. The lorry receipts were issued by opposite party from Kochi within the jurisdiction of the forum. That itself would show part of the cause of action arose within such place enabling the complainant to file his complaint in the event of any deficiency in service. The forum below has rightly repealed the challenge raised over want of statutory notice u/s 10 of Carriers Act which was canvassed to impeach the entertainability of the consumer complaints. Complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service to claim compensation. The forum below has rightly repealed the challenge raised over want of statutory notice u/s 10 of Carriers Act which was canvassed to impeach the entertainability of the consumer complaints. Complainant has filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service to claim compensation. He had other legal remedies as under the Carriers Act subject to issuing of a statutory notice thereunder in no way affects or impinges his right to prosecute a consumer complaint provided he has sustainable grounds to establish his status as a consumer in relation to the transaction with the opposite party and he suffered loss on account of deficiency in service by that party. Section 3 of the Consumer Protection Act declares in unmistakable terms that the provisions of the Act "shall be in addition to and not in derogation of provisions any other law for the time being in force." A consumer is conferred with a right to proceed under the Act even if he is having legal remedies under other statutory provisions or under the common law of the land before the appropriate courts established. There can be no challenge to the prosecution of his complaint, on the premise of want of notice under the provisions of a statute like Carriers Act. If only he is setting up a case under the provisions of Carriers Act and prosecuting such claim before a court then alone a plea as to want of notice could be raised. The Consumer Forum is a quasi judicial authority and a consumer complaint before it on any of the grounds covered by the Act does not envisage of, require or demand a prior notice to the opposite party, to claim compensation. In short all the preliminary objections raised by the opposite party to impeach the entertainability of the complaints are unworthy of any merit, and the findings made by the Forum is unassailable, but on different reasoning as expressed above. 10. We have already stated that the material point involved to determine whether there was deficiency in service on the part of opposite party lies on a very narrow campus. Parties have adduced enormity of evidence has no bearing or significance when the answer to the disputed point involved on a limited sphere. Admittedly complainant had engaged opposite party to transport his goods to Culcutta. Opposite party had issued lorry receipts in quadruplicate for transportation of goods to complainant with invoice. Parties have adduced enormity of evidence has no bearing or significance when the answer to the disputed point involved on a limited sphere. Admittedly complainant had engaged opposite party to transport his goods to Culcutta. Opposite party had issued lorry receipts in quadruplicate for transportation of goods to complainant with invoice. The original handwritten lorry receipts (consignee copy) duly signed by the opposite party Carrier along with second copy of Consigner''s copy were issued to the complainant/Consignor and 3 copy of lorry receipt was issued to the driver of the vehicle rd carrying goods and 4 copy is the accounts copy of opposite party. With the consignor''s copy th and the second copy of lorry receipt complainant negotiated with the bank and the bank in turn sent the documents to its collecting branch at Culcutta after discounting. The documents sent were returned from the collecting bank as unpaid and thereupon complainant was forced to pay the amount due to the bank which had provided the discounting facility and thus he suffered loss, is the case of the complainant. Opposite party had contended that the goods were entrusted with the complainant for direct delivery and accordingly goods were delivered over to the consignee. Short question involved in the case is whether opposite party Carrier was aware of discounting on the basis of consignee receipts and thus liable to collect the consignee receipt duly endorsed by collecting bank over receipt of payment of goods before delivery of goods to the consignee. Admittedly opposite party had issued special forms for transportation of consignment for carrying the goods from Kerala to Culcutta which interalia contained stipulations that the goods are to be released to the consignee only after collecting document issued from collecting bank that the value for the goods had been received. Concededly opposite party is an IBA approved Carrier and was bound to follow the IBA Rules. The relevant rules to be followed while transporting goods for which discount facility is availed is specifically mentioned under the various clauses of Rule 2 of IBA Rules. Opposite party has contended that for direct delivery of goods also special forms are used. That is a clear violation of Sub Clause 4 of IBA Rules. Rules 2.43 states that no lorry receipts in special form shall be issued for direct delivery of goods. Opposite party has contended that for direct delivery of goods also special forms are used. That is a clear violation of Sub Clause 4 of IBA Rules. Rules 2.43 states that no lorry receipts in special form shall be issued for direct delivery of goods. Special forms had been used for delivery clearly supports the case of complainant that the transactions covered over transportation of goods were subject to discount facility availed by complainant from the bank and delivery of goods to be effected to the consignee only on production of proper document evidencing payment before the collecting bank by the consignee. Naturally opposite party carrier should not have delivered goods to the consignee without obtaining original handwritten consignee copies evidencing payment of sum due on the goods at the collecting bank. The account copy maintained by opposite party does not contain any endorsements over the discounting facility provided by the bank for the goods transported is unworthy of any merit. What have been issued by opposite party is a special lorry receipt and that being so delivery of goods can be made only where there is an endorsement by the consignee bank evidencing discharge by payment of goods. Rule 2.26 of IBA Rules emphatically states "no transport operator shall deliver any consignment covered by special lorry receipt to any party without obtaining the consignee copy of lorry receipt duly discharged by consignee bank". Another plea taken by opposite party that the goods have been delivered to consignees as directed by complainant is devoid of any merit. Rule 4.5 of IBA Rules specifically mandates that the transport carrier shall not act as per the instructions of consignors and deliver the goods to anybody when the bank is the consignee. So the question is only whether opposite party was aware that the goods transported are subject to discount facility provided by a bank for which we need only look into the special forms of receipt as covered by IBA Rules issued for transportation of goods. There is absolutely no merit in the plea canvassed by opposite party that such special forms are used for direct delivery as well. There is absolutely no merit in the plea canvassed by opposite party that such special forms are used for direct delivery as well. The documents produced by complainant over the transaction involved which were collected by him after discharging the liability arising from the discount facility provided clearly establish that the goods entrusted to complainant were covered by a discount facility and delivery of such goods to the consignee could be made by the Carrier only on production of documents from the collecting bank showing discharge by payment of value of goods. Account copy maintained by opposite party does not contain any endorsement over the discounting facility provided is of little significance. There is certainly deficiency in service on the part of opposite party Carrier and it is liable to compensate the applicant for loss suffered when direct delivery of goods to the consignee by opposite party without production of documents evidencing discharge from collecting bank. In the result, in reversal of the order of dismissal passed by the lower forum we direct the first opposite party, transport carrier to pay the sum claimed towards value of goods transported in each of the complaints, with compensation of Rs.10, 000(Rupees Ten thousand) and cost of Rs.5000/- (Rupees five thousand) in each of them, to the complainant within thirty days from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. Appeals are allowed.