PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) FOLLOWING 9 issues require adjudication:-1]. Whether the suit is barred by limitation under Rule 30 of Schedule II chapter III of Carriage by Air Act, 1972" 2]. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction or not" 3]. Whether the plaint is signed, verified and suit instituted by the competent person in accordance with law or not" 4]. Whether there is any privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant No. 2" 5]. Whether the actions of defendants in delivering the goods to the ultimate consignee without receipt of payment was illegal without authority and if so to what effect" 6]. Whether the defendants are jointly or severally liable and to what extent" 7]. What are the losses which the plaintiff has suffered on account of wrongful delivery of its consignment by the defendants" 8]. Whether in view of the insurance cover purchased by the plaintiff, is the present suit maintainable" 9]. Whether the claim of the plaintiff stands satisfied in view of the payment already made as per limited liability under the carriage by Air Act, 1972""

( 2 ) PLAINTIFF is an exporter. Harnam Singh is stated to be its director. Plaint has been filed under authority of Shri Harnam Singh who has signed and verified the pleadings. Defendants are airlines, who, amongst others, are engaged in the business of transporting consignments by air.

( 3 ) ADMITTED case of the parties is that plaintiff hired services of defendant No. 1 to carry leather uppers to West Germany under airway bill no. 09857645545 dated 21. 8. 1990. Said airway bill constitutes the contract between the parties. Notifying party was Sparkassenaila Bank in West Germany. Goods were to be delivered at Nuremburg. First defendant carried the goods to frankfurt and thereafter entrusted the same to defendant No. 2 for being air lifted to Nuremburg. Defendant No. 2 informed that the consignment had been delivered at Nuremburg on 30. 8. 1990. The delivery of consignment was not as per the airway bill. Consignment was delivered to the consignee without notifying the banker named. Since goods were not paid for, a claim was raised. Defendant no. 1, acknowledged wrong delivery of goods and offered to settle the claim by paying @us$ 20 per kg. Declared weight of shipment being 1989 kgs, US$ 39,780 were offered.

( 4 ) PLAINTIFF wanted DM 1,82,717. 30 being invoice value of the goods. Defendant No. 1 stuck to its stand.

( 5 ) PLAINTIFF filed a complaint under Section 12 read with Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal commission which was registered as OP No. 56/1992.

( 6 ) ON 6. 7. 1993, the said petition was disposed of holding that plaintiff was free to take action as per law. It was noted that defendant No. 1 admitted liability to compensate plaintiff in sum of US$ 39,780. It was recorded that the payment would be made within 6 weeks.

( 7 ) PRESENT suit claims a decree in sum of Rs. 48,86,784/- together with interest @25% per annum. Break-up of Rs. 48,86,784/- is as under:- 1. The price of the consigned goods, as per the invoice and the declaration in the Airway Bill DM 1,50,152. 90 Less Rs. 12,51,877 received on 15. 10. 93 as per National Commission order. Thus, the balance invoice amount to be received by the plaintiff DM 84,264. 90

2. The simple interest @25% on the said amount from Sept'90 to 13th Oct'93 (3 years) DM 113,970. 10

Total DM 1,98,235. 00

Equivalent to Indian Rupees

(@rs. 19/- per DM)

Rs . 37,66,465

3. Estimate loss of profits on CCS which the plaintiff would have earned Rs . 2,82,857

Loss on account of Duty Draw Back which the plaintiff would have earned Rs . 1,00,749

Loss on profit on REP (Replenishment licences ) worth Rs. 3,14,285/- @30% of the amount Rs . 94,285

4. Loss of additional benefits for export house amounting to Rs. 1,41,428 with Rs . 42,428

profit @30% of that amount

5. Loss of rebate in taxation which t