Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. BOPANNA, PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.
M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium - Appellant
Versus
Kuwait Airways & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9106 of 2012 With Civil Appeal No. 9194 of 2012
Decided On : 09-11-2023
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – [Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – Section 67] – Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Sections 19 and 13(3) – Contract Act, 1872 – Sections 186, 188 and 237 – Airlines – Delay in delivery of export consignment – Compensation of Rs. 20 Lakhs along with 9% interest awarded by NCDRC – NCDRC has not committed any illegality or perversity in recording finding that there was delay in delivery of consignment – Appellant has paid air freight which is ten times more than sea freight only to ensure that consignment reaches its destination within a week because sea cargo would have taken 25 to 30 days for delivery and appellant has paid such huge freight charges for ensuring early delivery – Delay in delivery of consignment has necessarily inflicted damage to appellant which is liable to be satisfied by respondent No.1 – It is not the case of respondent No.1 that respondent No.2 had acted beyond terms of agency – Neither it is averred that respondent no.2 was not agent of respondent No.1 – A party is not entitled to seek relief which he has not prayed for – Complainant/appellant has sought damages for Rs. 20 lakhs only as compensation for loss of business and reputation – On this point also, order passed by NCDRC sustained – Order passed by NCDRC upheld. (Paras 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25)
Facts of the case:
Present two appeals are cross appeals preferred against order passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 01.10.2012 in Original Petition No. 229 of 1997 whereby complaint filed by appellant/complainant was disposed of while directing respondent no. 1 to pay appellant/complainant US$ 500750/- or Rs. 20 lakhs is less along with 9% per annum compensation with effect from 31.07.1996 till its realization.
Findings of Court:
Court not inclined to interfere with Order passed by NCDRC and resultantly both Civil Appeals deserve to be and are hereby dismissed.
Result : Civil Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Prashant Kumar Mishra, J.
These two appeals are cross appeals preferred against the order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission,1[(for short ‘the NCDRC’)] dated 01.10.2012 in Original Petition No. 229 of 1997 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/complainant was disposed of while directing respondent no. 1 to pay the appellant/complainant US$ 500750/- or Rs. 20 lakhs is less along with 9% per annum compensation with effect from 31.07.1996 till its realization.
2. The case of the appellant/complainant is that it is an exporter of all kinds of handicrafts goods to several countries including USA. The appellant/complainant had received an order from M/s. Williams Sonoma Inc. USA for supply of handicraft goods. Accordingly, the appellant/complainant had to send three shipments of 1538 packages weighing 26,859.5 kg. to the consignee on an urgent basis, which was specifically informed to the respondents. On 22.07.1996, the goods were tendered to respondent no. 1 through respondent no. 2 after getting an assurance that the shipments will reach destination at Memphis within 7 days and delivery schedule was handed over to the appellant/complainant. As per the schedule, the entire consignment was supposed to reach at Memphis by 31.07.1996.
3. The consignments did not reach the destination at Memphis (USA) as per the delivery schedule. On enquiry, respondent no. 1 expressed its inability to deliver the consignments as per the delivery schedule provided to the appellant and a revised delivery schedule was given on 05.08.1996, which mentioned the date of delivery on 06.08.1996. However, the consignment did not reach at the destination even as per the revised delivery schedule.
4. On non-receiving the goods, the consignee expressed its anguish by sending a letter dated 23.08.1996 and informed the complainant that the goods are not received in toto, and respondent no. 1 was unable to tell where the remaining cartons are.
5. It is also on record that 69 cartons were lying with Lufthansa. The respondent no. 1, by its letter dated 30.08.1996 addressed to respondent no. 2, accepted the short delivery. On 07.09.1996, the appellant/complainant made a modest claim against the respondents for refund of full freight. In response to the said claim, respondent no. 2 confirmed having short delivered 104 cartons out of 288 cartons but did not state whether the other cartons had arrived at the destination. The appellant served the legal notice dated 04.08.1997 on the respondents, which evoked no response.
6. Ultimately, the appellant/complainant lodged a complaint before the NCDRC with the prayer that respondent no. 1 be directed to refund a sum of Rs.24,48,345/- being the fair charges for the consignments; pay a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs as compensation for loss of business and reputation; pay US$ 7042.00 being the value of the goods short delivered; pay interest @ 18% as well as cost of litigation, which was disposed of as abovesaid. Hence these appeals.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that admittedly, the shipments booked by the appellant on 24.07.1996, which were to be delivered by 31.07.1996, were delivered to the handling agent of the Consignee only in the month of September, 1996 from 03.09.1996 to 12.09.1996 with delay of more than 40 days.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the goods were tendered to respondent no. 1 on a specific representation that the same will be delivered within seven days, therefore, time is the essence of the contract between the parties. It is next argued that in the case in hand, it is clear from the material on record that respondent no. 1 has been highly negligent in rendering its services to the appellant.
9. Learned counsel further submits that once the NCDRC arrives at the conclusion that there is delay in delivery of consignment due to negligence of respondent no. 1, fair, just and reasonable compensation must be awarded in accordance with conditions of the contract and st
A party is not entitled to seek relief which he has not prayed for.
The court ruled that carriers are liable for damages caused by delays in delivery and must provide compensation as per the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.
Section 10 of the Carriers Act requires notice of loss but does not apply to non-delivery claims; payment of freight does not negate liability for lost goods.
Limits of liability specified in rule 22 shall not apply, if it is proved that damage resulted from an act or omission of carrier, his servants or agents, done with intent to cause damage or reckless....
Established practices in service contracts may override specific delivery instructions, influencing liability in consumer disputes.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the carrier was not liable for the delivery of goods without the consignee copy of 'Goods Consignments Notes' in the absence of an agreement o....
The transporter is liable for damages due to non-delivery of goods as per the contractual agreement, when delivered without obtaining necessary lorry receipts.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
