JUDGMENT - Mr. Justice G.G. LONEY, President:---Since the 3 complaints are filed by the same complainant, against the 2 different opposite parties for the similar allegations, they are dispossed of by this common order. A common grievance is made by complainant that complainant had entrusted consignments of goods to the opposite parties for purposes of delivery but instead of delivering the goods to the consignees, the opposite party delivered it in favour of 3rd party without any instructions or authority in that behalf from the complainant. According to complainant, since he had hired the services of opposite parties as a carrier, for consideration and since the opposite party as a carrier failed in their duty to deliver the consignment at the appointed place and person, he has suffered the loss as regards his goods and therefore, claimed compensation. In response to notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act dated 14-5-1990, the opposite party failed to make any appearance before this commission and also failed to submit its written version. This commission therefore, proceeded ex-parte against the opposite party. 2. The facts appearing in each case are stated below in short. (a) The complainant alleged that opposite parties are carriers engaged in the business of transporters. In response to an order of their clients, complainant entrusted goods to the opposite party to be delivered to the consignee after depositing the amount in their account in the Bank. The documents in respect of goods were sent to the concerned banks for negotiations and only after the said consignee makes the payment to the Bank, the Bank would release the documents in favour of the consignee. Thereafter, the consignee were to take the delivery of the goods from the opposite party. It was also a stipulation that the opposite parties shall give delivery of consignments only after collecting original documents from their clients. The complainant alleged that separate consignments were given to the opposite party in these 3 complaints, but without going through the aforesaid arrangements and without getting the documents from Bank after payments, the opposite party delivered the goods to 3rd party with whom complainant had no concern. The Bank papers were therefore, returned to the complainant without receiving any payments for goods into their accounts. The complainant therefore, requested the opposite party to rebook and re-deliver the goods back to their Firm at Bombay. The Bank papers were therefore, returned to the complainant without receiving any payments for goods into their accounts. The complainant therefore, requested the opposite party to rebook and re-deliver the goods back to their Firm at Bombay. However, according to complainant, till the date of filing of this complaint, neither goods were delivered to them by the opposite party nor they received the payment of goods through Bank and therefore, complainant alleged deficiency in the service of the opposite party due to negligence and claimed various amounts for the losses suffered in these 3 complaints. The details of claims in each complaints are described as under : (b) Complaint No. 742 of 1992 The complainant in this complaint vide Bill No. 1003,. 1004 and 1006 dated 18th June, 1991 had delivered 3 consignments valued at Rs. 30,425 to opposite party for delivery to consignee. The documents of 3 consignments were addressed to Canara Bank for negotiations and only after M/s. Rishab Textiles made the payment to Canara Bank in complainants account, the Bank was to relieve the documents in favour of consignee. Then the delivery of the consignment was to be made. However, according to complainant, the Canara Bank returned the documents to the complainant, as a result of non-receipt of payments. In this complaint, the complainant therefore, claimed value of lost goods for a sum of Rs. 30,425/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum for the sum of Rs. 6,750 and Rs. 60,000/- towards damages. A total amount of Rs. 1,02,175/- is claimed. (c) Complaint No. 449 of 1992 In this complainant, the complainant booked 11 consignments dated 29-8-1989 for the total value of Rs. 1,22,166/-. The consignment of goods were to be delivered to M/s. R.V. Textiles of Kota in Rajasthan. The documents were sent to their Banker, New Bank of India at Kota, under the similar arrangement as stated in Complaint No. 742 of 1992. The complainant alleged that since his goods were not delivered after the payment through the Bank, he suffered the loss of his goods worth Rs. 1,22,166/-. The complainant also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum over the total loss of his goods at the rate of 18% per annum and thus claimed total amount of Rs. 1,86,303/- from the opposite party. 1,22,166/-. The complainant also claimed interest at the rate of 18% per annum over the total loss of his goods at the rate of 18% per annum and thus claimed total amount of Rs. 1,86,303/- from the opposite party. (d) Complaint No. 677 of 1992 In this complaint, complainant had booked 8 consignments for the sum of Rs. 82,026. The consignment was addressed to M/s. Rishab Textile of Beawer. The consignment was delivered to the opposite party for the said delivery under the similar conditions as described in Complaint No. 742 of 1992. In this complaint also the opposite party failed to deliver the consignment as per the stipulation and therefore, complainant has claimed the value of his loss of goods worth Rs. 82,026/- and interest at the rate of 18% per annum and compensation. Thus complainant claimed compensation of Rs. 2,14,026 from the opposite party. 3. The complainant in all these 3 complaints, filed his affidavit in support of his allegations. The allegations are found to be proved regarding the deficiencies in the service of the opposite party. We are satisfied that the complainant proved his allegations in each complaint as regards deficiencies in the promised service of opposite party as a carrier. The opposite party is therefore, liable to compensate the loss of complainant for the sum shown in their consignment. However, we do not agree for the claim of compensation in addition to the claim of interest. It will meet the ends of justice if the opposite party is directed to pay to the complainant in each complainant the value of goods together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of loss till realisation by way of compensation. Similarly, complainant be paid Rs. 500/- as cost in each complaint. Hence, we pass the following order. Order 4. (a) In Complaint No. 742 of 1992, the opposite party is directed to pay to complainant Rs. 30,425/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of entrustment of the consignments towards compensation till the date of realisation of amount. The complainant also be paid Rs. 500/- as cost. The rest of the claim of the complaint is dismissed. (b) In Complaint No. 449 of 1992, the opposite party is directed to pay to complainant Rs. The complainant also be paid Rs. 500/- as cost. The rest of the claim of the complaint is dismissed. (b) In Complaint No. 449 of 1992, the opposite party is directed to pay to complainant Rs. 1,22,166 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of entrustment of the consignments towards compensation till the date of realisation of amount. The complainant also be paid Rs. 500/- as cost. The rest of the claim of the complainant is dismissed. (c) In Complaint No. 677 of 1992 the opposite party is directed to pay to complainant Rs. 82,026/- together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of entrustment of the consignments towards compensation till the date of realisation of the amount. The complainant also be paid Rs. 500/- as cost. The rest of the claim of the complainant is dismissed. Complaint dismissed. *****