Heard learned counsel for petitioner, on admission. Factual backgrounds are that a parcel weighing 12 Kg containing materials of value of Rs.1,52,060/- was sent to the addressee through courier services of petitioner on payment of Rs.350/- by respondents. As consignment was lost in transit, delivery of consignment could not be effected to addressee. Since matter could not be settled despite persuasion, notice was sent to petitioner which while acknowledging loss of consignment, for which a police case had been registered also sent draft of Rs.450/- comprising of Rs.350/- paid, and also Rs.100/- for loss of consignment during transit. The offer made by courier services was however not acceptable to the respondent who filed consumer complaint with District Forum. Complaint was resisted by petitioner-courier services holding their liability restricted to Rs.100/- in case of loss of consignment during transit. District Forum having overruled contentions raised by petitioner, while accepting complaint, directed petitioner to pay Rs.1,52,060/- that being value of consignment sent by respondent. Even appeal preferred by petitioner, did not find favour with State Commission, which upholding award of District Forum, dismissed appeal. Two fold contentions were raised by petitioner. Firstly, it was urged before us that since transaction in question was of commercial nature, consumer fora had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the case and secondly that liability of petitioner-courier services in terms of Clause 5 of terms and conditions was limited to Rs.100/- only. Reliance was placed on decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in matter of Bharti Knitting Co. Vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier division of Airfreight Ltd., 1996- AIR (SC) –02508. Having considered submissions made on behalf of petitioner, we are of considered opinion that the transaction in question was not of commercial nature, in view of the ratio of decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Laxmi Engineering Works Vs. P.S.G. Industrial Institute – (1995) 3 S CC 583, nature of transaction between parties depending upon varieties of factors. Secondly, decision rendered in case of Bharti Knitting Co. (supra) was in different backgrounds as in that case complainant had signed note at the time of accepting consignment, acknowledging terms and conditions, mentioned therein. Hon’ble Apex Court having taken note of Clauses 5-7 of the terms and conditions held that since stipulation was made in the receipt, parties having signed them were bound to those terms and conditions. Petitioner’s contentions raised before State Commission were rejected holding that even recitals made in receipt, do not require declaration of value and also that there was no evidence about respondent having been ever apprised of terms and conditions mentioned in the over relief. Both District Forum and State Commission, while awarding compensation, also had taken notice of value of goods sent through Courier services, on the basis of invoice issued by supplier. Having considered submissions made on behalf of petitioner, services and also concurrent finding recorded by fora below, we are of considered view that contentions raised are devoid of merit and revision petition in the circumstances being berefit of merit is dismissed but without order as to costs.