Mr. Justice P.K. Shamsuddin. President— This appeal is directed against the order passed by the District Forum, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P. No. 399/95. The complainant is the appellant.

2. The complainant was filed by Centre of Indian Consumer Protection and Research on behalf of Sri. Abdul Rafi. The allegations in the complaint are as follows : —

3. Sri. Abdul Rafi purchased 3 tickets from a travel agent at Sharjah for himself, his wife and daughter for their journey from Sharjah to Trivandrum via Male. The tickets were that of Zas Airways- The date of journey was 7.7.1994. The complainant travelled from Sharjah to Male in the Zas Airlines Flight. Though the complainant and his co-passengers had confirmed tickets they were not given accommodation by Indian Airlines from Male to Trivandrum. The first opposite party could get accommodation only on 8.7.1994. It is the case of the complainant that they were not given proper accommodation and they were put to hardship and inconvenience. Further on reaching Trivandrum, the complainant found that out of the two bag gages entrusted with the opposite parties one baggage weighing 28 Kgs. was missing. The matter was reported to the opposite parties but the opposite parties could not trace out the baggage. Since the complainant claimed compensation for loss of luggage as well as for harassment and non-accommodation in the Air India Flight on 7.7.1994 from Male to Trivandrum and consequent difficulties and inconveniences caused to them.

The first and 4th opposite parties filed version contending that there is no deficiency on their part. They further alleged M/s. Cross World Agencies are the local agents of Zas Airlines at Male and they make the booking for the travellers in Zas Airlines from Male to Trivandrum by Indian Airlines Flight and M/s. Cross World Agencies booked only 79 seats for flight IC-964 on 7.7.1994 even though Zas Airlines brought 145 passengers in their flight on that day and accordingly Indian Airlines carried only 79 passengers to Trivandrum. The passengers were provided hotel accommodation. The complainants were accommodated in the next part. When they received the intimation regarding the missing baggage a property regularity report was issued and communications were also sent to Zas Airlines to find out missing baggage. Opposite parties 1 to 4 are not liable to compensate the complainant in respect of the same also stated that the complainant is not entitled to get his claim as the value was not declared and the maximum liability of carrier is 20 US dollars per Kg. and M/s. Zas Airlines was liable to pay the same.

4. Opposite parties 2 and 3 did not appear or file any version and they were set ex-parte.

5. The District Forum found that the complainant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 3,000/- for mental agony and other difficulties faced by them on account of failure to accommodate the complainant and co-passengers. However it held it is only opposite parties 1 & 4 who are liable for not giving accommodation in the Highland passed an order directing all the opposite parties to pay Rs. 3,000/-. It further held that second and third opposite parties are alone liable to compensate to pay 560 dollars that is on the basis that the weight of the baggage is 28 Kgms. and the complainants are entitled to get at the rate of 20 US dollars per Kg. for the baggage.

6. In this appeal filed by the complainant their main grievance is of not making the opposite parties 1 and 4 liable for the loss of baggage. Learned Counsel invited our attention to Clause 5 of the conditions of contract in respect of the international flight. It reads as follows :

"The Air Carrier issuing a ticket for carriage over the line of another Air Carrier does only as its agent."

7. It is not disputed that it was an international flight. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant argued on the basis of Clause 5 that Zas Airlines issued the tickets as only an agent of Indian Airlines and therefore, Indian Air