R.N. Mittal, President. This appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum-I by which his claim for Rs. 23.385/- has been rejected.

2. Briefly the facts are that the complainant travelled by Indian Airlines Plane from Bombay to Bangalore by Flight No. IC 007 dated 3rd June, 1990. He handed over one Safari Suitcase at the check-counter to the respondent for carriage to Bangalore. When he reached Bangalore it was found that the suitcase was missing. Consequently, complainant lodged a complaint for recovery of Rs. 24,985/- as loss suffered as detailed in Annexure 'A'. He stated that an amount of Rs. 1,600/- had been paid by the respondent to him. After deducting the amount of Rs. 1,600/-, he claimed Rs. 23,385/.

3. The complaint has been contested by the respondent. It has been pleaded by them that according to the regulations framed under the Air Corporations Act 1953, the complainant was entitled to get Rs. 160 perkg. In view of that rule the complainant was paid Rs. 1,600/-. The District Forum dismissed the complaint. The complainant has come up in appeal.

4. The agent of the complainant has argued that the appellant was entitled to the actual loss suffered by him, on account of loss of the baggage and further an amount of Rs. 2,500/- for mental agony and injury. He submits that rule 5 on the basis of which compensation has been paid to the complainant is not applicable to the cases filed before Redressal Agencies constituted under the Consumer Protection Act. In support of his contention he places reliance on Indian Airlines v. Shri Rajesh Kumar Upadhyay, Patel Ramubhai Shanker Lal v. Indian Airlines Corporation, The station Manager. Indian Airlines v. B.B. Dass.

5. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that regulation 5 is a statutory rule and the Redressal Agency under the Consumer Protection Act are bound to take it into consideration while dcciding disputes of the consumers. If that rule is taken into consideration, the complainant is not entitled to any further compensation.

6. We have duly considered the arguments. However, we find force in the arguments of the counsel for the respondent. Regulations have been framed u/s. 45(2)(g) of the Air Corporation Act 1971. The Act provides that after the regulations have been framed they shall be placed before the Parliament. Thus the regulations framed u/s. 45 have the approval of the legislature. It is wellsettled that the statutory regulations have got the force of law and that the Commission has not power to go into the vires of the regulations. Therefore, we are bound to decide the matter according to the regulations. Regulation 5(d) provides that subject to the provisions of sub-clause(e) the Corporation is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss of or damaged to any registered baggage, if the occurrence which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air. The liability of the Corporation has been limited to a sum of Rs. 160/- per kg. for registered luggage. According to the said regu1ation the complainant is entitled to Rs. 160/- per kg. for the loss of the luggage. In 1992 the amount of Rs. 160/- per Kg. has been enhanced to Rs. 300/- per Kg. The amount in accordance with the regulation has been paid to him.

7. The cases referred to by the agent for the appellant are distinguishable and the ratio in those cases is, therefore, not applicable to the facts, of the present case. In Rajesh Kumar Upadhya's case(supra) the consumer had claimed an amount of compensation for not providing proper medical facilities to his wife at the airport during the period they had to wait there in view of the delay in operation of the flight. It was held that the regulation framed under the Air Corporation Act shall not be applicable incase of gross negligence on the part of the concerned airline. In the present case there is no allegation of negligence much less the proof of the same and therefo