JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This complaint case filed on 9.11.1999, however, has a chequered history. It is its second innings here in this Commission after it was remanded by the Honle Supreme court. The genesis and sequence of this claim petition is as follows. Three companies, namely:- i) M/s. Bee Gee Handicrafts; ii) M/s. Rattan Textiles; and iii) M/s. K.Overseas, booked consignments for transporting to Germany, urgently, through the complainant, AFL Ltd., formerly, known as, Airfreight Ltd. The above said three companies wanted to exhibit those textile goods at a Trade Fair in Frankfurt, being held from 14th to 17th January, 1998. The complainant handed over those goods to DHL Worldwide Express which is a Division of the complainant, AFL Cargo India (Private) Ltd., DHL Worldwide Express obtained services of Lufthansa Cargo India (Pvt.) Ltd., the opposite party in this case and handed over the goods to it for air transport. The grouse of the complainant is that some of the goods arrived at Germany, after the Trade Fair was over and consequently, those three companies suffered the loss. 2. Under these circumstances, the above said complaint was filed in this Commission. This Commission decided the case finally vide order dated 6th January, 2004, wherein it was held :- 2.Leaving the claim of M/s. Bee Gee Enterprises, which has already been settled, the remaining claim of the present petitioner comes to Rs. 18,63,298/-. The record clearly shows that there has been negligence amounting to deficiency of service on the part of the respondent company in not delivering the consignments expeditiously and thereby frustrating the very purpose of the contract and the desire of the customers of the Petitioner to participate in the International Trade Fair. 13.The complainant claimed reimbursement of the amount of Rs. 34,298/- and Rs. 39,900/- paid to his clients M/s. Rattan Textiles and M/s. K. Overseas respectively and we feel these amounts should be allowed. He claims, he spent Rs.1,50,000/- towards costs of litigation, we feel justice would be met if 50% of that is allowed. He claimed expenses of Rs.40,000/- which we feel 50% of the amount is Rs.20,000/- is adequate. His claim for Rs.2,00,000/- for loss of future business and Rs.20,000/- as damages for loss of reputation, we feel has no justification and need not be granted. The total amount as derived at in the above claims is Rs.1,69,198/- which we direct the Respondents to pay with interest at 9% p.a. from 08.01.1998 till realization within two months from the date of receipt of this order. 14.The petition is allowed with above directions with cost of Rs. 5,000/- to be paid by the Respondent 3. It is, thus, clear that as per the said order except Bee Gee Handicrafts has attained finality and that was not called into question. 4. The complainant filed an application dated 15.04.2004 for rectification of this order. As a matter of fact, Bee Gee Handicrafts filed a complaint No. OP 87 of 1998 before this Commission. A compromise was arrived at between both the parties, i.e. Bee Gee Handicrafts and DHL Worldwide Express on 18.03.2002. In terms of the said Settlement, DHL Worldwide Express agreed to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-, in full and final settlement to the Bee Gee Handicrafts. The application for rectification was decided on 28th February, 2005 and it was held :- he argument of M/s. Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. that the value of the goods shown in the invoice is Rs. 19,030/-. Whereas the same is shown as Rs. 5,95,000/- in its claim is correct. However, the loss suffered by M/. Bee Gee Handicrafts because of its inability to exhibit the goods in the prestigious trade fair may not be the same as the value of the goods. There is no doubt that the parties suffered mental agony for not being able to exhibit its merchandise in a prestigious exhibition inspite of the best care taken by it. While it is true that M/s. Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. was not a party to the consent terms, it was aware of the consent terms and did not protest earlier that the consent terms were wrong, though it complained that the claim of M/s. Bee Gee Handicrafts was exorbitant. Since we have ordered reimbursement of amount paid by M/s. AFL Ltd. to the other two trading companies, it is clear that the Commission is not ordering reimbursement of the amount paid to M/s. Bee Gee Handicrafts is a mistake apparent on the record. However, there is no case for granting any interest on this amount. We ordered that this amount of Rs. 10 lakhs should be reimbursed by M/s. Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. AFL Ltd. within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order filing which it would attract interest at 9%. The order dated 06.01.2004 in O.P. No. 310/99 stands rectified to that extent. The above Miscellaneous Petition is disposed of accordingly 5. Aggrieved by that order, the opposite party filed Civil Appeal No.2947 of 2005 titled Lufthansa Cargo (Pvt. ) Ltd. Vs. AFL Ltd, wherein the Honle Apex court was pleased to observe :- . We have carefully perused the order dated 28.02.2005 and we find that it has relied upon only the settlement reached between Bee Gee Handicrafts and DHL Worldwide Express. There is no independent finding of the National Commission as to the amount of compensation which DHL Worldwide Express can claim from the appellant Lufthansa Cargo India Pvt. Ltd. for the alleged deficiency. No doubt, the settlement between Bee Gee Handicrafts and DHL Worldwide Express, is a piece of evidence which can be taken into consideration by the National Commission, but certainly, it is not res judicata, since the appellant herein, was not a party to the settlement. In our view, the National Commission should also have considered other pieces of evidence, while deciding the liability of the appellant herein, for compensation to be paid to the respondent herein. 5. Accordingly, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 28.02.2005 and remand the matter to the National Commission for deciding afresh, the rectification application filed by the respondent herein, in accordance with law, expeditiously. Appeal allowed. No order as to the costs 6. The key argument urged by the counsel for the complainant was that it has already paid a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the Bee Gee Handicrafts and it will be a loser if this Commission decides that less amount should be given to the complainant. In this context, he has invited our attention towards the complaint filed by M/s. Bee Gee Handicrafts & Anr. Vs. M/s. DHL Worldwide Express & Anr., wherein in Para 4 of the complaint it was explained : hat the complainants elected to participate and put up a stall at the EIMTEXTIL FAIRat Frankfurt, Germany which was to be held from 14th January to 17th January 1998 with a view to procure business from the prospective buyer visiting the fair. The complainants booked a stall / booth at the said fair and paid a sum of DM 4269.33 (Rs. 96,000/- in Indian currency) towards the fee for the raw space. The complainants prepared special samples worth Rs. 5,95,000/- to be displayed at the said fair and spent another sum of DM 3199/- (Rs. 71,000/- in Indian currency) for the preparation of the stall. In addition to that a sum of DM 1174 (Rs. 25,000/- in Indian Currency) were spent by the complainant for the compulsory entry in official catalogue of the said fair. In order to ensure that the participation in the said fair is a success the complainant deputed two personnel, one from India and another from United States, to reach Germany and be present at the said fair and to make the participation a successful event 7. In this case the complainant has proved on record the copy of notice Annexure P8 sent to DHL Worldwide Express by M/s Bee Gee Handicrafts on 27.1.1999, which mentions:- . That my clients elected to participate and put up a stall at the EIMTEXTIL FAIR- at Frankfrut, GERMANY which was to be held from 14th January to 17th January, 1998 with a view to procure business from the prospective buyers visiting the fair. My clients booked a stall/booth at the said fair and paid a sum of DM 4169.33 (Rs. 98,000) towards the fee for the raw space. My clients prepared special samples worth Rs.5,85,000/- to be displayed at the said fair and spent another sum of DM 3199 (Rs.71,000/-) for the preparation of the stall. In addition to that a sum of DM 1174 (Rs.25,000/-) were spent by my clients for the compulsory entry in official catalogue of the said fair. In order to ensure that the participation in the said fair is a success my client deputed two personnels, one from India and another from United States, to reach Germany and be present at the said fair and to make the participation a successful event. 11. Since you have failed to deliver the consignment/shipment in terms of the assurances and guarantee given by you at the time of the booking of the shipment, I hereby call upon you to pay the following costs to my clients: (Rs.) 1. Cost of samples 264 pcs + 5 sets 5.95 (lakh) 2. Cost of booth or stall (raw space) DM 4169.33 0.96 (do) 3. Cost of stall preparation @ DM 3100 0.71 (do) 4. Cost of compulsory entry in the Official catalogue 0.25 (do) 5. Air Ticket of Mr. Ashok Bhatia 0.46 Air Ticket of Mr. Manoneet Bhatia 0.34 0.80 (do) 6.Hotel stay 11th to 17th Jan (DM 2492.00 0.57 (do) 7. Daily expenses 11th to 18th Jan ($250 per day) 0.80 (do) 8. Cost of Airfreight Part & DHL 0.72 (do) ------------------- Rs. (Lakh) 10.76 ---------------- You are also called upon to pay within seven days of the receipt of this legal notice, a sum of Rs.3 crore on account of the losses and damages for the failure of the participation of my client towards the orders that my client was to get during the fair and another sum of Rs.3 crores towards the likely repeats thereafter. I further call upon you to pay a sum of Rs.4 crores to my client towards the cost of mental agony and frustration because of the failure in participation at the said fair i.e. a total of Rupees Ten Crores, Ten Lakhs and Seventy Six Thousand towards damages. You are further called upon to pay a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards cost of this legal notice to my client. If you fail to pay the damages claimed above, I have definite instructions to take appropriate legal action against you for the recovery of the said amount at your risk and cost 8. It was emphasized that the plea set up by the Opposite party that the said decree was obtained while the complainant in that case, Bee Gee Handicrafts was working in cahoots with the opposite party, DHL Worldwide Express, is false. The decretal amount was paid as per the averments made in the complaint. He also contended that as per the Honle Supreme Court, that judgment may not be considered as a res judicata, but the same must be considered as having infinite value. He contended that the complaint of Bee Gee Handicrafts read in injunction with the complainant averments and evidence has substance and it needs no frills. He explained that on the day when the matter was settled between the parties, unfortunately, Mr.H.L.Tiku, Senior Counsel for the Opposite Party was not available. He had gone to Chandigarh as is apparent from the order sheet . Their effort was that the Agreement should be signed in presence of Sh.H.L.Tiku. An application, before this Commission was also moved for clubbing both OP No.310 of 1999, along with OP No.87 of 1999, filed by both the complainants as the subject matter of the disputes in the two petitions are identical and pertain to the same set of transaction. Both these petitions were tagged together. Bee Gee Handicrafts had filed initially, a suit claiming a sum of Rs.10.00 crores, but due to intervention of this Commission, the matter was settled at Rs.10 lakhs. 9. It was further submitted that in para No.3 of the settlement, it was specifically recorded that the Agreement by AFL would not either act as a precedent nor would be used against AFL so as to adversely affect the business interest and reputation. The complainant has already paid a sum of Rs.10 lakhs to the Bee Gee Handicrafts. 10. It was next argued that this Commission, vide order dated 06.01.2004, unambiguously held that the Lufthansa Cargo India (Pvt.) Ltd., was grossly deficient in its service in not delivering the shipments of the five customers of ALF, on time. The Textile Fair was over by 17.01.1998, while the consignment had been delivered, subsequently, on 03.02.1998. The order passed by this Commission that Lufthansa was deficient in service, vide order dated 06.01.2004, has attained finality and the Honle Supreme Court did not pick up a conflict with that finding. 11. It was lastly argued that since the complainant has already paid the said amount to Bee Gee Handicrafts because of the negligence and deficiency on the part of Lufthansa, therefore, the complainant should be reimbursed. 12. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, the duty casts on this Commission is to winnow the truth from falsehood. As a matter of fact, the truth lies somewhere in between. It is true that the Honle Supreme Court of India has not touched the question of negligence and deficiency on the part of Lufthansa Cargo India (P) Ltd. The only question which survives for adjudication is to how much the amount the complainant is entitled. On the other hand, the counsel for the Opposite party has invited our attention towards certain documents, which also throw light over this knotty question. 13. Our attention was invited to Annexure P-1 which is the Airway Bill. It mentions VD which means, o Value was Declared The flight was to go from New Delhi to Frankfurt. The departure date was 08.01.1998. At the back of the same Airway Bill, condition No.4, runs as follows:- xcept as otherwise provided in carrier tariffs or conditions of carriage. In carriage to which the Warsaw Convention does not apply carrier liability shall not exceed USD 20.00 or the equivalent per kilogram of goods lost, damaged or delayed, unless a higher value is declared by the shipper and a supplementary charge paid 14. Shipment Airway Bill, Annexure P-2, also mentions the same facts. In the next page, it mentions ree Trade Samples of Cotton made UPS for Hem Textile Fair. It also mentions that Bee Gee Handicrafts Heim Textile Fair Stall No.9.39.3E 41, Breidenstein GMBH. The value of the shipment is mentioned as INR 9081/- plus Rs. 19,030/- total being Rs.28,111/-. 15. Counsel for the complainant argued that his liability should be limited to that extent only. However, the documents also reveal that the complainant had to pay freight charges, in the sum of Rs.83,757/- which will have to be considered, proportionately. It also came to light that on 13.01.1998, out of 47 packages, belonging to Bee Gee Handicrafts, remaining 29 packages were received, but 18 packages could not arrive. Those 18 packages were delivered on 03.02.1998 when the Trade Fair was already over. The Complainant asked the Opposite party to bear freight and incidental charges. 16. It must be noticed that Lufthansa was not a party to the compromise arrived at between Bee Gee Handicrafts on the one hand and DHL Worldwide & AFL, on the other hand. Counsel for the complainant submitted that no separate order was passed by this Commission that the above said both cases should be consolidated but could not deny that both the cases were tagged together. 17. It is thus clear that opposite party was negligent in respect of the part of the goods. There is no denial of that. 29 packages were received at the destination, on time. For that there should be no grouse. The opposite party is liable only for 18 packages, the total loss occurred, including the freight charges, comes to around Rs.1,11,868/-. 18. It must be borne in mind that in view of all the facts and circumstances and in view of observations made by the Apex Court, it is difficult to fall for the story, in regard of ten lakh rupees loss, Hook Line and Sinker. The allegation that Bee Gee Handicrafts and DHL Worldwide worked cheek by jowl cannot be dismissed lightly. This is one side of the coin, the other side ought not to be overlooked. 19. It must be borne in mind that the Lufthansa Airlines became the instrument in making the complainant trade show a flop. In absence of substantial number of articles/items the whole expected spectrum paled into insignificance. Such loss which also entails one reputation cannot be measured with few rupees. However, the duty of this Commission is to find out the reasonable and just amount in this regard. 20. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the fact that more than half the goods/consignments have been delivered, we are of the considered view : (i) that out of Rs.1,11,868/- the complainant is entitled to have Rs.50,000/- less than half of the amount with interest at the rate of 9% p.a. from 8.1.1998, till its realization; (ii)The Bee Gee Handicrafts booked a stall/booth and paid a sum of Rs. 96,000/-, got prepared special samples amounting to Rs.5,95,000/-, Rs.71,000/- for preparation of stall and Rs.25,000/- for the compulsory entry in official catalogue of the said fair. It deputed two personnel, one from India and second from Germany to make the Trade Fair a success. It had to incur other miscellaneous amounts, as detailed above. A successful Trade Fair, for a particular party, is a forerunner for bringing a lot of business orders from their customers. The said evidence was not rebutted. The total amount comes to Rs.7,87,000/- plus service of two persons. Under these circumstances, we are of considered view that the complainant is entitled to compensation, which must be wee bit less than 50% of the total amount, which comes to Rs.3,50,000/-, with interest at the rate of 9% from 8.1.1998, till its realization; (iii) The complainant is also entitled to receive litigation charges, compensation for harassment, mental agony, anger, anguish, frustration and sadness in the sum of RS. 2,00,000/-, which the complainant has suffered for about 16 years which be paid within 90 days, from the date of order, otherwise, it will carry interest at the rate of 9% p.a. till its realization. 21. The case stands disposed of.