JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This is an indisputable fact that on 02.08.2008, Pankaj Kumar Jain, the complainant/ respondent was to depart by Continental Airlines flight which was to take off from Jacksonville to Newark, USA. On the same day, the complainant had to catch British Airways Flight to London. On 03.08.2008, he was to travel by British Airways Flight from London, UK to New Delhi, India. However, due to thunderstom in Jacksonville, USA, the complainant Continental Airways Flight from Jacksonville to Newark, which got inordinately delayed and as such, the complainant could not board the already connected flight of the British Airways. Under such a situation, the Continental Airways rescheduled the flight. On 03.08.2008, the Continental Airways brought the complainant to Frankfurt, Germany. On 04.08.2008, Lufthansa Airways brought him to New Delhi, India. 2. At New Delhi, it transpired that the baggage of the complainant was missing. The Lufthansa Airlines made wholesome compensation to the complainant, in the sum of Rs.4,000/-. Subsequently, the lost baggage was produced by the staff of Lufthansa Airlines at the residence of the complainant in Kolkata. It was found that the baggage was broken, one lock holder was removed and chain was cut from one corner and there was pilferage of some articles. The complainant contended that he had sent the list of all items which were lost, by e-mail, which the petitioner/ opposite party received. Complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum directed Lufthansa Airlines, the OP to pay Rs.65,690/- towards the value of the lost goods, compensation in the sum of Rs.30,000/- and litigation costs of Rs.10,000/-, within 45 days from the date of communication of the order, failing which, interest @ 9% p.a. would accrue to the said amount, till realization. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed First Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission dismissed the appeal. 4. The counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner is not responsible for the said loss. He has invited the attention of this Commission towards Article 45 of the Convention for Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, which reads : n relation to the carriage performed by the actual carrier, an action for damages may be brought, at the option of the plaintiff, against that carrier or the contracting carrier, or against both, together or separately. If the action is brought against only one of those carriers, that carrier shall have the right to require the other carrier to be joined in the proceedings, the procedure and effects being governed by the law of the court seized of the case 5. He also provided us with the terms and conditions of General Conditions of Carriage (Passengers and Baggage). He contended that according to this, aggage tag means, a document issued by Carrier solely for identification of checked baggage (baggage strap/tag portion of which is attached by Carrier to a particular article of checked baggage and the baggage identification tag portion of which is given to the passenger). When, according to the definition of heck-in deadline it means that, at the time specified by the Airlines, you must have got completed the check-in, for getting the Boarding Pass. The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the baggage was brought by the British Airways. The opposite party was not connected with it, that is why, the baggage was not traceable. He contended that OP took the baggage from British Airways and put it in the Indian domestic airways, which went to Kolkata. He explained that all the above said parties are necessary parties in this case as per Article 45, quoted above. 6. All these facts are lame of strength. The State Commission had recorded the fact that the complainant baggage was loaded on the Lufthansa Flight which was confirmed by Lufthansa Airways staff at Frankfurt, after duly checking their computer system. The story that baggage was not brought by the Lufthansa Airlines, appears to have been made, out of whole cloth. 7. Secondly, the OP, on the same day had confirmed the loss of the complainant baggage, and had taken the list of lost items. The OP created a confirmation of compensation of Rs.4,000/-, on the spot. 8. Thirdly, it is also transpired that on 08.08.2008, without any prior intimation to the complainant, two members of the staff of OP, came to the complainant residence at Kolkata with the complainant baggage which was in a broken condition. The baggage was broken, one lock was removed and the chain was cut from one corner. The complainant had checked the baggage in the presence of the two employees of the OP. It was found that valuable items were missing and some clothes were left in a haphazard manner. The total weight of the baggage was 23.4 kgs and the damaged baggage was weighed at the complainant residence on 08.08.2008, which weighed 14.5 kgs only. The complainant asked the said staff to prepare inventory of the articles found in the complainant baggage and affix their signatures, but they refused to prepare any such inventory. The complainant, under such situation, was forced to return the baggage. 9. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that those two employees were couriers, they were not employees of OP/petitioner. However, he could not deny that the OP has vicarious liability. Even if we assume the story of OP, as gospel truth, why did they take that baggage, weighing 10 kgs less from the British Airlines?. They should have lodged a report, there and then. They did not produce any report as to how much weight was found, which was weighed at Indian Domestic Airlines. No such evidence was forthcoming. The real facts are kept under the hat. It exposes the sloth and callousness of the administration of the OP. It smacks of a fig leaf job. 10. We do not find that Continental Airways or British Airways are necessary parties. The admission of receipt of such goods, comes out from the horse mouth itself. If there was anything doubtful, a complaint should have been lodged, there and then. Again, let us have a look on the behavior of the two persons, who tried to handover the goods to the complainant. Their bizarre conduct is difficult to fathom. Such like things do not happen in a civilized world. It is also surprising to note that no enquiry was conducted by the Lufthansa German Airlines. The opposite party has made a vain attempt to make bricks without straw. Under these circumstances, the OP cannot wash its hands, off the responsibility. This is an egregious mistake committed by the OP and this incident places the OP in an extremely poor light. Those persons who tried to handover the goods to the complainant should have co-operated with the complainant. It is also noteworthy that the OP did not urge for the addition of a party, before the District Forum. The State Commission rightly observed that when the OP accepted the offer made by Continental Airways, it also undertook the responsibility with regard to the passenger and baggage, as well. Both the fora below have decided the case in favour of the complainant and no legal question as such, arises. Powers of this Commission are limited. It is clear that OP is terribly amiss in discharge of its duties. The revision petition is without merit. Therefore, the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission.