By Smt. C.S. Sulekha Beevi, President,<br /> <br /> 1. Facts of the case in brief is as follows: Complainant who is the proprietor of Jeelani International Travels and agency entrusted a cover containing travel documents to be send by flight in favour of Mr.Abdu, Bombay. Opposite party has neither delivered the cover to the addressee nor has returned it to the complainant. The documents in the cover were entrusted by one Siddique to the complainant. That Siddique was forcing the complainant to pay compensation. The complainant prays for Rs.4 lakhs as compensation as value for loss of the consignment.<br /> <br /> 2. Opposite party has filed version denying that the complainant is the proprietor of M/s Jeelani International Travels. Opposite party admits the entrustment of a packet to be delivered to one Mr.Abdu, Mumbai. The said packet was lost in transit. The weight of the packet was indicated in the Airway bill as 'minimum'. That complainant had not declared the value of the articles. The liability of opposite party is limited to Rs.450/- as per conditions in contract of consignment.<br /> <br /> 3. Evidence in this case consists of Exts.P1 to P6 and oral evidence of PW1. Exts.R1 to R3 marked and DW1 examined on the side of opposite party.<br /> <br /> 4. The points that arise for consideration are (i) Whether there is deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. (ii) Reliefs and costs.<br /> <br /> 5. According to the complainant he is the proprietor of Jeelani International Travels on 3-8-2001 he entrusted a cover containing two original visas to be send to Mr. Abdu, Threestar, L.J.Road, Mahim, Bombay. Ext.P1 series is the photocopy of the visas. Ext.P2 is the photocopy of the Airway bill No.589-714-2608-5-21. Ext.P3, P4 and ext.P6 are the written communications made by complainant to opposite party regarding the non-delivery of consignment. Opposite party has given an inter5im reply which is Ext.P5. Opposite party admits Ext.P2 consignment note. In version as well as in evidence tendered by DW1 opposite party admits that the said consignement send in flight 9W424 from Calicut to Mumbai was lost in transit. This amounts to deficiency of service on the part of opposite party. Point (i) is thus found in favour of the complainant.<br /> <br /> 6. Point (ii):- Complainant is certainly entitled to relief of compensation for the deficiency of service on the side of opposite party. Complainant claims Rs.4 lakhs as value of the visas. Also claims Rs.50,000/- for mental agony. And Rs.5000/- for travelling expenses. Opposite party resists this on the contention that the conditions of consignment as stated in the Airway bill limits the liability to Rs.450/-. According to complainant the cover sent contained two original visas. It was sent to the consignee to be produced before the Saudi Embassy at Mumbai for checking the veracity. PW1 has sworn that one Siddique entrusted the visas to him. In Exts.P2 and R1 to R3 the nature of goods consigned is described as 'TRVLDOC'. According to the complainant this means Travel Documents which were two original visas. In the consignment note it is not specified that the cover contained visas. The value of the contents are not declared or insured by complainant. This is crystal clear from Ext.P2 and R1 to R3. Complainant does not have a case that visas belonged to Siddique. There is no evidence as to who are the real owners of the visas. If such valuable documents are lost the persons most aggrieved would be the real owner of the visas. According to complainant Siddique demanded Rs.5 lakhs as value of the visas and he was forced to pay Rs.1,25,000/- on 19-12-2001, Rs.15,000/- on 17-10-2002 and Rs.75,000/- on24-2-2002. Thus a total amount of Rs.2.15 lakhs is alleged to be paid to Siddique as compensation for the loss of visas. Though in the chief affidavit complainant speaks about receipts for the above payments as Ext.P7 series no such documents are seen exhibited and marked. Complainant therefore has no consistant case with respect to the value of visas. He has not adduced any reliable evidence as to the exact value of the visas. Complaint is silent as to who are the owners of the visa and what exactly is the loss sustained by them. Owners of the visas would have been the best witnesses to speak about monetary loss due to non-delivery of consignment. Even Siddique has not come forward to support the case of complainant. We hold that the complainant has failed to prove what exactly is the loss sustained by him due to non-delivery of the cover.<br /> <br /> 7. James Manoharan, Airport Manager of Jet-Airways was examined as DW1. Ext.R1 is the Airway bill with instructions for despatch of goods. Ext.R2 is the carbon copy corresponding to Ext.P2 consignment note. Ext.R3 is the Cargo manifest. In all these the nature of goods is shown as 'TRVLDOC'. The weight shown is 'minimum'. According to DW1 Cargo bills are issued as self carbonated copies. Consignor has to sign in the specified column on the front side. In Ext.P2, R1 and R2 consignor/complainant has signed in the specified column. Thus complainant has agreed and accepted the conditions of the contract. At this juncture it is pertinent to note what are the conditions in the contract of consignment. Opposite party asserts that as per condition No.5 printed on the reverse side of Airway bill Ext.P2 liability is fixed to Rs.450/-. The reverse side of Ext.P2 is totally blank. Ext.P2 is only photocopy of the Airway bill. Complainant has not explained why he failed to produce the original Airway bill. On the front top right 3rd column of Ext,P2 the conditions are read as under: <br /> “It is agreed that the goods described herein are accepted in apparent good order and condition (except as noted) for carriage subject to the conditions of contract on the reverse thereof. The shippers attention is drawn to the notice concerning carriers' limitation of liability. In the event of non-declaration of goods, the shippers liability under any circumstances would not exceed Rs.450/- per kilograms of goods. Shipper may increase such limitation of liability by declaring the actual value in case it exceeds Rs.450/- per kilogram and pay a supplemental charge, therefore.” <br /> <br /> So it can be inferred that further conditions are printed on the reverse side of Ext.P2. DW1 has stated terms and conditions are written on the reverse side Some conditions are printed on the front. Complainant has not produced the whole of Ext.P2 document. By not taking photocopy of the reverse side of Ext.P2 complainant has thus deliberately suppressed facts. Exts.R1 to R3 does not contain anything regarding the conditions restricting liability. They are self carbonated copies of the originals. Counsel for opposite party also has not taken any endeavor to produce a specimen copy of Airway bill to appraise the Forum regarding the conditions printed on the reverse side. From the conditions printed on the front side itself it is clear that the liability of opposite party is limited to Rs.450/- of the value of goods are not declared.<br /> <br /> 8. In the result we partly allow the complaint and opposite party is ordered to pay Rs.450/- (Rupees four hundred and fifty only) to the complainant along with costs of Rs.2000/- (Rupees two thousand only) within three weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.<br /> <br /> Dated this 3rd day of October, 2007.<br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> APPENDIX<br /> <br /> Witness examined on the side of the complainant : PW1<br /> PW1: Aboobacker, Travel Agency.<br /> Documents marked on the side of the complainant : Ext.P1 to P6<br /> Ext.P1 series: Photocopy of visas.<br /> Ext.P2: Photocopy of the Airway bill.<br /> Ext.P3: Photocopy of the letter dated, 19-8-01.<br /> Ext.P4: Photocopy of the lawyer notice dated, nil.<br /> Ext.P5: Photocopy of the reply dated, 20-8-01.<br /> Ext.P6: Photocopy of the letter dated, 25-8-01. <br /> Witness examined on the side of the opposite parties : DW1<br /> DW1: James Manoharan, Airport Manager, Calicut.<br /> Documents marked on the side of the opposite parties : Ext.R1 to R3<br /> Ext.R1: Airway bill with instructions.<br /> Ext.R2: Carbon copy of consignment note.<br /> Ext.R3: Carbon copy of Cargo manifest.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> C.S. SULEKHA BEEVI, PRESIDENT<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> K.T.SIDHIQ, MEMBER<br />