JUDGMENT : The petitioner is before this Court, aggrieved by Ext.P2 judgment dated 16.11.2009 in CC No.11/2009 of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, whereby the State Commission has returned the complaint to the petitioner for filing before the CDRF, Ernakulam. 2. The petitioner states that on termination of his employment at Sultanate of Oman, the petitioner returned to India on 31.01.2007. His journey from Muscat to Cochin was in “Oman Air” service. The petitioner carried 30 Kilograms of baggage which was entrusted to Oman Air. On landing at Cochin International Airport, the petitioner found that his baggage was lost. The petitioner thereupon filed a Property Irregularity Report. 3. The petitioner filed a Consumer Complaint before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Thrissur seeking compensation from Oman Air. As the CDRF, Thrissur lacked territorial jurisdiction, the petitioner was asked to approach the proper Forum. The petitioner therefore filed a petition before the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram, seeking Rs.66,81,000/- as cost of luggage, Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation and Rs.20,000/- as costs of litigation. 4. The complaint was filed under the Second Schedule, Chapter III, Rule 22 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The State Commission, relying on Ext.P3 Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, held as per Ext.P2 judgment that 250 Francs is equal to 20 US Dollars and hence the complaint is to be instituted before the District Forum with suitable amendments. 5. The counsel for the petitioner argued that Ext.P3 order of the National Commission relied on by the State Commission has no application to the facts of the case. The National Commission has not held that 250 Francs is equal to 20 US Dollars. Ext.P1 complaint filed by the petitioner is to be dealt with by the State Commission. Ext.P2 judgment is therefore legally unsustainable. 6. Respondents 1 and 2 resisted the writ petition filing Counter Affidavit. The respondents submitted that the petitioner checked in two baggage. He refused to receive the baggage tendered to him at the baggage area saying that the same does not belong to him. Therefore, the Oman Air deposited the baggage with the customs officials. The complaint filed by the petitioner is abuse of process of the court. 7. The respondents submitted that the petitioner checked in two baggage. He refused to receive the baggage tendered to him at the baggage area saying that the same does not belong to him. Therefore, the Oman Air deposited the baggage with the customs officials. The complaint filed by the petitioner is abuse of process of the court. 7. The conversion rate consistently followed by the State and National Commission is logical and rational, considering the Sterling equivalent order issued by the United Kingdom in the year 1999 as 250 Francs is equivalent as 14.08 Pounds which is almost equivalent to 20 US Dollars. House of Lords in the judgment in Sidhu and others v. British Airways reported in 1997 (430) has held that the language used and subject matter with which the Convention deals demonstrate that what was sought to be achieved was uniform International Code, which could be applied by all high contracting parties without reference to the Rules of their own domestic law. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2. 9. The question that is posed for adjudication in this writ petition is as to the manner in which compensation is to be computed under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 for lost baggage, which in this case would influence the choice of judicial forum based on pecuniary jurisdiction. In short, whether Ext.P1 Complaint is to be lodged in the Consumer State Commission or District Forum, is the issue raised. 10. Clause 22(1), Chapter III of the 2 nd Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 provides as follows: 22. (1) In the carriage of persons the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of 2,50,000 francs. Where, in accordance with the law of the Court seized of the case, damages may be awarded in the form of periodical payments the equivalent capital value of the said payments shall not exceed 2,50,000 francs. Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability. As per Clause 22(2)(a), the liability of the Carrier in relation to registered baggage is limited to 250 Francs per kilogram. Nevertheless, by special contract, the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability. As per Clause 22(2)(a), the liability of the Carrier in relation to registered baggage is limited to 250 Francs per kilogram. Clause 22(5) provides that the sums mentioned in Francs in the rule shall be deemed to refer to a currency unit consisting of 65 and a half milligram of gold of millesimal fineness nine hundred. Conversion of the sums into national currencies other than gold shall, in case of judicial proceedings, be made according to the gold value of such currencies at the date of the judgment. 11. The Francs mentioned in Clause 22 is therefore not the French Currency/Coin, but a notional currency. Going by the plain meaning of Clause 22(5), at the first blush, one will feel that computation of compensation is not so complicated, as one has only to multiply the kilogram loss of baggage with 65 and half milligram of gold value, for gold of millesimal fineness nine hundred. The only dispute that can crop up is whether the gold value is to be taken as market value of gold or the standard gold value, if any, fixed by the Government of the country. 12. But, the issue is multidimensional as the preamble to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 provides that it is an Act to give effect to the Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to international carriage by air signed at Warsaw on the 12 th day of October, 1929 and to the said Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol on the 28 th day of September, 1955 and also to the Montreal Convention signed on the 28 th day of May, 1999 and to make provision for, applying the rules contained in the said Convention in its original form and in the amended form (subject to exceptions, adaptations and modifications) to non-international carriage by air and for matters connected therewith. As the Act, 1972 is intended to govern international carriages also, any interpretation of the provisions of the Act should be in consonance with the object of the Act. 13. Both the unamended Convention and the Hague Protocol provide that the sums in Francs may be converted into national currencies in round figures. The provision thus envisages national legislation in the matter. India has enacted the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. 13. Both the unamended Convention and the Hague Protocol provide that the sums in Francs may be converted into national currencies in round figures. The provision thus envisages national legislation in the matter. India has enacted the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The Government of India, Ministry of Tourism and Civil Aviation has issued a Notification regarding application of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, to carriage by air which is not international, on 30.03.1973, as per S.O.186(E). 14. By the amendments effected as per the Notification, the words “250 Francs” in Clause 22(2)(a) stands substituted as “Rupees four hundred fifty” and the words “5,000 Francs” in Clause 22(3) stands substituted as “Rupees four thousand”. But, the said Notification is as regards carriage by air which is not international. We are dealing with a case of carriage by air which is international. No Notification is brought to the notice of the Court in respect of carriage by air which is international. 15. In Shawcross and Beaumont on Air Law, which is a leading authority on Aviation Law, it has been stated that the whole question of the expression of the Convention limits in national currencies has become progressively more difficult. The existence of an “official” value of gold in most countries minimised the practical problems for a period, but changes in the international monetary system in 1978 produced something of a crisis. Four possible approaches have been suggested by the Shawcross and Beaumont on Air Law. (1) The “French Franc” Solution The Solution suggests to apply the market value of French Franc as used in France. This approach involved fixing upon the reference to the French Franc in the unamended convention but ignoring the reference to its gold value. This approach was rejected by courts in United States and in New Southways. The introduction of the Euro and the disappearance of the French Franc as a unit of currency in actual use made the “French Franc Solution” quite impracticable. (2) The “Market Price” Solution This approach takes into consideration the fact that the authors of the Warsaw convention had in mind the value of a certain weight of gold. Even if gold is no longer central to the international monetary system, it still has a market value readily determined. (2) The “Market Price” Solution This approach takes into consideration the fact that the authors of the Warsaw convention had in mind the value of a certain weight of gold. Even if gold is no longer central to the international monetary system, it still has a market value readily determined. As the free market price of gold fluctuates on the basis of political and economic considerations unrelated to factors such as prices and wages, the “Market Price” solution also gives rise to uncertainty. A plaintiff's damages can get reduced as a result of the fall in the value of gold and this in fact is the weakness of this Solution. The level of compensation should not depend on the state of the flow of business. (3) The “Status Quo” Solution This third solution in effect freezes the position by using the last official value in terms of gold possessed by the national currency in question. There is no legal prohibition on the use of gold to determine a relationship between the convention limits and a national currency. The acceptability of the Status Quo solution was the subject matter in Trans World Airlines Inc. v. Franklin Mint Corpn. (SBAL. Issue 117). The Court of Appeal, taking the view that the repeal in the United States of the “Par Value Modification Act”, which had set the official rate, was based on a domestic and international conclusion that the official price of gold was wholly out of touch with economic and monetary reality. The Court held that the case for continuing to use the old official price of gold found no support in law or logic. The only relationship between that price and the unit specified in the convention itself was “a historical one; that is to say, one which no longer exists”. (4) The “SDR” Solution The fourth solution is the “SDR Solution”. SDR indicates Special Drawing Rights. The value of an SDR is based on a basket of the world's five leading currencies namely, the US Dollar, Euro, Yuan, Yen and the UK Pound. It is an interest bearing international reserve asset created by the IMF to supplement other reserve assets of member countries. 16. Conversion rates between the SDR and national currencies are readily available and are the basis of the system envisaged in the montreal additional protocols. It is an interest bearing international reserve asset created by the IMF to supplement other reserve assets of member countries. 16. Conversion rates between the SDR and national currencies are readily available and are the basis of the system envisaged in the montreal additional protocols. Since 1978 there has been no link between the SDR and gold, but formerly the SDR had a fixed value of 0.888671 grams of gold. One SDR accordingly equal 15 Poincare Francs and this conversion factor was used in drafting Montreal Protocols. The “SDR Solution” retains this conversion factor coupling with it the current value of the national currency as against the SDR. 17. The “French Franc Solution” is now unworkable and is inconsistent with the intention of the Warsaw protocol and Hague convention. At certain times, the price of gold will be such that the liability based on that price would greatly exceed those indicated by international consensus. The “Status Quo Solution” becomes harder to defend as time passes, especially as it takes no account of the realities of international practice. 18. In effect, there is no logically compelling argument for any one solution internationally. The Courts, in the absence of legislation controlling the issue, will have to interpret the convention as best they can, selecting one Solution as the best available in the circumstances. The Courts and Tribunals in India have followed a path in the lines of “The SDR Solution” by assigning a fixed value to the “Francs” contemplated under the Warsaw Convention, Hague Protocol and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. 19. In the case, Air Lanka v. S. Prasannan [(I) (1998) CPJ 117 ], the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission considered the question of liability of carrier for loss of contents in the luggage in the context of “International Carriage” as defined in the First Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act. The State Commission accepted US Dollar 20 as compensation per kilogram. For loss of 5 kilograms of goods, the State Commission fixed the liability as 100 US Dollars. 20. In Balaji Inc. v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and others [I (1997) CPJ 206 ], the National Commission also took the damages equivalent to US Dollar 20 per kilogram. The State Commission accepted US Dollar 20 as compensation per kilogram. For loss of 5 kilograms of goods, the State Commission fixed the liability as 100 US Dollars. 20. In Balaji Inc. v. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and others [I (1997) CPJ 206 ], the National Commission also took the damages equivalent to US Dollar 20 per kilogram. In the case of Gargi Parsai v. KLM Royal Dutch Airlines [I (1996) CPJ 2 ] arising from the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the National Commission also adopted US Dollar 20 per kilogram as damages. 21. In Ext.P3 judgment in The Manager, Air India Limited and others v. M/s. India Everbright Shipping and Trading Company [2001 (2) CRR 5 (NC)], the National Consumer Disputes Rederessal Commission, New Delhi held that the liability of Airlines cannot exceed the limits prescribed in Rule 22 of Chapter III Schedule II of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and held that the respondent therein would be entitled to relief at the rate of 20 US Dollars per kilogram for its weight. 22. In the impugned Ext.P2 judgment, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission found that the rate of 20 US Dollars per kilogram is equivalent to 250 Francs and therefore the complaint of the petitioner is to be instituted before the appropriate District Forum with suitable amendments. Going by the methods followed by the Courts in India in computing damages for loss of baggage under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and considering the necessity for a consistent approach in the matter, I do not find any illegality in Ext.P2 judgment. 23. It is also to be taken into account that the Government of India has issued Notification dated 30.03.1973 regarding application of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 to carriage by air which is not international. In the said Notification, the words “250 Francs” have been substituted by “Rupees four hundred and fifty” and the figures and words “5000 Francs” have been substituted by the words “Rupees four thousand”. Though the said Notification is confined to the carriages by air which are not international, it shows the intention to assign a fixed value to Franc, as against value based on fluctuating price of gold. For all the afore reasons, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. The writ petition is therefore dismissed.