The main legal point established is that the application of limitation under Rule 30(1) of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 requires the party invoking the limitation to prove the date of arrival of the consignments at the destination.

Thiru Justice M.S. Janarthanam, President—These appeals spring from three different and distinct orders passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Madras (South), on one and the same day namely 29.11.1996 respectively in O.P. Nos. 438, 439 and 440/95.

2. The individual complainants in the original actions are distinct and different individuals although the opposite parties are one and the same.

3. The individual complainants, pursuant, to a contract entered into by them with the 3rd opposite party, were stated to have despatched certain consignments of garments to them for giving delivery at Seattle, through the 1st opposite party, airways, whose agent is the 2nd opposite party.

4. It was agreed between the consignor and the consignee that the garments so consigned should be delivered at Seattle.

5. The consignments of garments, it is said, were to be on board by way of cargo in the 1st opposite party, airways, on a specified date. The 1st opposite party, airways, it appears, flies between Chennai and Los Angels. Since the 1st opposite party, airways, is not running up to Seattle from Chennai, the cargo by way of consignments put into the 1st opposite party, airways, on a specified date, arrived at Los Angels, and from there it was stated to have been transported to Seattle by means of truck for affecting delivery to the consignee, the 3rd opposite party.

6. Since the delivery of the consignments to the consignee was unduly delayed, the consignee, it is said, did not accept the delivery of the consignments, causing loss or damage to the complainants.

7. The individual complainants resorted to the original actions as stated above as against the opposite parties claiming damage in a specified sum.

8. The opposite parties contested the original actions before the Forum below and they, as a matter of fact, filed counter or version opposing the claim as made by the individual complainants.

9. The Forum below, it appears, took up for consideration the plea of limitation as a preliminary issue and arguments of the respective learned Counsel appearing for the parties were heard on such aspect of the matter.

10. The Forum below, in all those original actions, after taking into consideration the projection of hues of views by the respective learned Counsel appearing for the parties, ultimately recorded a finding that the claim as made by the individual complainants in all the original actions are barred by time and on the basis of such a finding, all the individual complaints in the original actions were dismissed as barred by time without costs.

11. Aggrieved by the orders as above in the original actions, the individual complainants resorted to the present actions namely A.P. Nos. 706 to 708/97 by engaging a Counsel of their choice namely namely learned Counsel Mr. P.J. George.

12. Process had been served on the opposite parties/respondents in all these actions. Respondents 2 and 3/opposite parties 2 and 3, despite service, virtually remained absent without engaging a Counsel of their choice. Respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1 alone entered appearance in all these actions through a Counsel of their choice namely learned Counsel Mr. G.D. Joseph.

13. Arguments of learned Counsel Mr. P.J. George, appearing for the appellants/complainants and learned Counsel Mr. A. Ramanujam, representing learned Counsel Mr. G.D. Joseph, appearing for the respondent No. 1/opposite party No. 1, were heard.

14. From the pith and substance of the arguments emerging from the said learned Counsel appearing for the parties, the one and only question that crops up for consideration is as to whether the order of the Forum below in all the three original actions namely O.P. Nos. 438, 439 and 440/95 dismissing the individual complaints as barred by time, are sustainable in law, on the facts and in the circumstances of the cases.

15. In all these original actions, the special plea of limitation as adumbrated under Rule 30(1) of the II Schedule attached to t