JUDGMENT- Mrs. A.S. VIJAYAKAR, Member:--This is an appeal against the order of the Tamil Nadu State Commission, Madras, in O.P. No. 169 of 1991 before it. 2. The facts of the case as put before the State Commission are that the respondent-complainant is working as an Area Executive for Quality Tubes and Capillaries, which is a Private Limited Company having its head office at Jaipur, dealing in copper brass tubes and sections. The respondent-complainant gets orders on commission of 1.6 per cent from the company on the net value of the orders. On 25-3-1991 a consignment of papers, described as important by the respondent including performance report and agreement letters, were entrusted by the complainants head office at Jaipur to the (appellant) courier at Jaipur to be transported and delivered to the respondent-complainant at Madras. The consignment did not reach the complainant. In spite of repeated reminders there was no response. The matter was taken up with the appellants head office at Delhi, but in vain. The documents have not been received. The complainant was put to much loss and hardship and he, thereafter, claimed Rs. 2,50,000/- as compensation. 3. At the time of the hearing in the State Commission the appellant failed to enter appearance and was, therefore, proceeded against ex parte. 4. After taking evidence the State Commission held that it was a clear case of deficiency on the part of the appellant. Taking into account that the value of the orders lost in the above-mentioned courier parcel was alleged to be Rs. 50,00,000/- and that the respondent would have gained a commission of Rs. 80,000/- if the consignment had been duly received and that the complainant must have been subjected to the mental agony ensuing from this loss, the State Commission granted Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation to the respondent-complainant plus Rs. 500/- as costs and refund of Rs. 15/- being the freight charges collected within one month from the date of receipt of the order. 5. In appeal, the appellant has submitted that as per the consignment note the said Quality Tubes and Capillaries Pvt. Ltd., had agreed to the Terms and Conditions that the liability of the courier service is limited and restricted to the extent of Rs. 100/- only. Further, as per the I.A.T.A. regulations, no important documents were to be sent through courier service. 100/- only. Further, as per the I.A.T.A. regulations, no important documents were to be sent through courier service. A specimen copy of the consignment note was filed and marked herein as Annexure A. The contention of the appellant is that since the consignment was lost in transit, it is liable to the extent of Rs. 100/- only as damages. Moreover, the parties are bound by I.A.TA. regulations which prohibit sending of important papers. Then again the consignor is bound to disclose the nature of contents before sending the consignment. Later on, after the consignment is lost in transit, a claim cannot be made that there were very important documents in it, the declared value of which was not specifically put down in the column assigned for it in the courier consignment note beside the column description of contents. 6. During the hearing the counsel for the complainant-respondent was unable to specify the important documents in the consignment. The performance report and agreement letters were not important nor incapable of reconstruction. 7. We find that there is substance in this appeal. If the documents which were consigned were of great value, the consignor ought to have insured them. No such step was taken nor was even their value disclosed in the consignment note. 8. We also fail to understand why the consignor could not have been asked to send duplicate copies of the lost documents when the loss came to light. 9. Therefore, the compensation awarded by the State Commission is not justifiable. In the circumstances of this case, we hold that since there has been a deficiency in the service of the courier, Rs. 100/- as per the accepted terms of the courier service plus Rs. 500/- as costs may be given to the respondent. 10. The appellant has also taken other pleas in its memorandum of appeal that the Madras State Commission did not have territorial jurisdiction, as the cause of action arose in Jaipur and the appellant has its head office in Delhi. And also that the respondent-complainant was not a consumer as defined under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as he was not the consignor who paid Rs. 15/- for the carriage of the consignment. But these pleas were not pressed during the hearing. Moreover, the complainant being the beneficiary of the service contracted for, he is a consumer entitled to file the complaint and receive compensation. 15/- for the carriage of the consignment. But these pleas were not pressed during the hearing. Moreover, the complainant being the beneficiary of the service contracted for, he is a consumer entitled to file the complaint and receive compensation. 11. In the result, we modify the order of the State Commission to the extent that the compensation is reduced from Rs. 1,00,000/- to Rs. 100/- only, besides the costs awarded, viz., Rs. 500/-. 12. With these observations, we dispose of the appeal. Appeal partly allowed. *****