PER JUSTICE R.C. JAIN, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) The challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 16.09.09 passed by the Rajasthan State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Jaipur (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case no. 23/07. The complaint before the State Commission was filed claiming a total compensation of Rs.34,99,307/- under different heads on the ground of alleged deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in regard to non-delivery of a jewellery consignment ..2.. which the complainant had sent to Hong Kong from Jaipur through the opposite parties no. 2 & 3. The consignment was insured with the opposite party insurance company for a sum of Rs.19,01,000/- equivalent to US $ 41052, the value of the consignment. Admittedly, the consignment remained undelivered at its destination as it was purportedly mis-placed/could not be traced. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties. On consideration of the respective pleas and the material brought on record, the State Commission partly allowed the complaint by giving the following directions:- “ For the reasons stated above, the complaint filed by the complainant deserves to be allowed in the manner that the complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.19,01,000/- ( value of the goods in question and sum assured under the insurance policy) from opposite party no.1 & 3 jointly and severely along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint till payment is made and apart from this, the complainant is also entitled to get a sum of Rs.20,000/- as cost of litigation from both and the complaint against opposite party no.2 deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, this complaint filed by the complaint is allowed against opposite party no.1 & 3 in the following manner and to the extent that:- (i) That opposite party no.1 & 3 are directed to pay to the complainant jointly and severely a sum of Rs.19,01,000/- ( Rupees Nineteen Lacs One Thousand only) alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the ..3.. complaint till the payment is made and further to pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation and if the amount of Rs.20,000/- is not paid within two months, the complainant would be entitled to get interest on the above amount @ 9% p.a. from today. (ii) That the complaint against opposite party no.2 is dismissed. (iii) However, it is made clear that in case the payment is made by the insurance co., opposite party no.1 to the complainant, the Insurance Company is free to proceed against the carriers, opposite party no. 2 & 3 for recovery of the sum payable by them to the complainant insured in accordance with law. (iv) It is further made clear that in case the amount is recovered by the complainant from opposite party no.3, the opposite party no.3 can also proceed for recovery of that amount from opposite party no2., its principal, as there was an agreement between both of them. “ 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the original opposite party no.3, Unique Cargo Movers has filed the present appeal while no appeal has been filed by either the insurance company or the Federal Express Corporation (FedEx). Notice on the appeal was issued to the respondents and in response, the respondent no.1 the original complainant has filed an application requesting his deletion from the array of parties in the present proceedings on ..4… the ground that after passing of the impugned order by the State Commission, the Oriental Insurance Company has paid a sum of Rs.22,36,444/- to the respondent no.1/complainant and, therefore, he is no longer interested in defending the appeal and the controversy raised in the appeal remains to be decided between the appellant and respondents no. 2 & 3. 3. We have heard Mr. Prithi Pal, learned counsel for the appellant, M/s. Unique Cargo Movers and Ms. Renuka Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.3, Federal Express Corporation (FedEx) but had not the advantage of hearing the say of the insurance company as none appeared for them at the time of hearing of the appeal despite due notice having been given to them. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the impugned order so far as it has held the appellant also liable to pay the amount along with the insurance company primarily on the ground that the order is not in consonance with the settled legal position in regard to the liability of a freight forwarder which role the appellant has played in the instant case. Going by the facts and circumstances of the case as also the material obtaining on record, more particularly ..5.. the admission made by respondent no.3, FedEx and its offer to pay a particular amount to the complainant in discharge of its liability as per the terms of the contract, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant in the capacity in which it was placed, i.e., freight forwarder could not have been held liable for any deficiency in service, far less being asked to make payment of any part of the awarded amount because it satisfactorily showed on record that it had duly handed over the consignment of the complainant to respondent no.3, FedEx for onward carriage to its destination, i.e., Hong Kong. Nothing else was expected of a freight forwarder. The State Commission has, therefore, grossly erred in fastening the liability on the appellant and holding it also liable to pay the awarded amount jointly and severally along with the insurance company. Surprisingly it has let off respondent no.3, FedEx from its liability despite its admission of having misplaced the consignment. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the order of the State Commission, so far as it held the appellant, Unique Cargo Movers jointly and severally liable along with the insurance company to pay the awarded amount, deserves to be set aside. ..6.. 5. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned order of the State Commission so far as it held the appellant deficient in service and has directed it to pay the awarded amount jointly and severally along with the insurance company is hereby set aside. So far as the question of liability of FedEx, i.e., the opposite party no.2 in the original complaint and respondent no.3 in the present appeal is concerned, we may simply observe that it would be for the insurance company to seek its remedy against the said carrier if it is so advised and it would be open for the said opposite party to defend itself in those proceedings on the strength of the plea(s), it may like to raise. The First Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 6. It is stated that even before the filing of the complaint, respondent No.3, FedEx had remitted a sum of Rs.22,500/- to the appellant towards settlement of its contractual liability by cheque no. 132270 dated 21.11.06. The factum of receiving the said cheque is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Since the complainant has already been paid the awarded amount in terms of the order of the State Commission, counsel for the appellant states that the cheque received by the appellant would be returned to the respondent no.3 within a period of two weeks. In case the ..7.. cheque has been encashed and credited to the account of the appellant, the amount of the cheque shall be remitted to the respondent no.3 within the said two weeks.