Back
2005 Supreme(Del) 114
High Court Of Delhi
DEEPAK INDUSTRIES LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA - Respondent
C.S. : 1032 of 2000
Decided On : 02/01/2005
D.R.BHATIA
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the bailee (defendant No. 1) for not keeping the goods in safe custody, as per the principles of bailment.
Headnote:
Bailment - Recovery of Goods - Customs Act, 1972, Section 46 - Indian Interest Act, 1972, Provisions - Plaintiff sought recovery of amount for loss of goods while in custody of Airport Authority of India - Plaintiff entitled to recover amount of Rs. 13,37,586 from defendants jointly and severally - Plaintiff entitled to interest at 10% p.a. compounded quarterly from 23.12.1999 - Defendant No. 1 held negligent for not keeping goods in safe custody
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a manufacturer of auto parts, sought recovery of Rs. 35,25,000 from Airport Authority of India and Union of India for loss of goods while in custody of Airport Authority of India. Defendant No. 1 alleged that plaintiff misappropriated the consignment in collusion with others.
Finding of the Court:
The court found plaintiff entitled to recover Rs. 13,37,586 from the defendants jointly and severally. Plaintiff was also awarded interest at 10% p.a. compounded quarterly from 23.12.1999. Defendant No. 1 was held negligent for not keeping the goods in safe custody.
Issues: 1. Plaintiff's entitlement to recover the claimed amount 2. Plaintiff's entitlement to interest at what rate and for what period 3. Negligence on the part of defendant No. 1
Ratio Decidendi: Plaintiff's entitlement to recover the claimed amount and interest was based on the provisions of the Indian Interest Act, 1972. Defendant No. 1 was held negligent for not keeping the goods in safe custody, as per the principles of bailment.
Final Decision: The court decreed in favor of the plaintiff and against defendants 1 and 2, jointly and severally, in the sum of Rs. 13,37,586 with interest at 10% p.a. compounded quarterly from 23.12.1999 till the date of the decree and from the date of the decree till the date of payment. Plaintiff was also awarded costs.
( 1 ) PLAINTIFF a manufacturer of auto parts brings an action against Airport Authority of India and Union of India for recovery of Rs. 35,25,000/- on the allegation that, for manufacture of its product, it imported goods under 3 invoices. On import, goods had to be cleared by the custom authorities and pending clearance were kept under the custody of Airport authority of India. Goods got stolen while in custody of Airport Authority of india. On import, plaintiff had to effect payment to the foreign supplier. For one of the consignment even custom duty was paid. As a result of loss of the goods while in custody of Airport Authority of India, not only did the plaintiff suffer loss on account of payment made to the foreign supplier but even suffered loss of reputation and damages, apart from custom duty paid on one of the consignment.
( 2 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 has chose not to file written statement and was proceeded ex parte. Defendant No. 1, Airport Authority of India has, while admitting import of the goods and custody thereof, defended on the plea:
"the plaintiff is the one who has misappropriated the consignment in question in collusion with his agent and some persons employed and working in and around the Airport area having access to the same and knowing the movement of defendant No. 1. "
( 3 ) PLEADINGS of the parties would reflect that there is no dispute between the parties that the first consignment, having declared value of the imported goods US $ 9871 reached the Airport at Delhi on 25. 9. 1997. On 20. 5. 1998 plaintiff approached defendant No. 1 for customs examination but goods could not be made available. Qua the second consignment it is the admitted position of the parties that the declared value thereof was DM 16398. 70. Consignment reached and was placed in the custody of defendant No. 1 on 21. 7. 1997. Plaintiff obtained order for customs examination on 16. 8. 1997 but approached defendant no. 1 for lifting the goods on 24. 8. 1998. Goods could not be located being lost. Qua third consignment admitted position is that its declared value was DM 18743. 00 and it reached Delhi on 20. 10. 1997 and was sought to be cleared on 24. 8. 1998.
( 4 ) ON 12. 2. 2004 following issues were framed:
"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount as claimed? -OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any interest? If so, at what rate and for what period? -OPP 3. Whether there was no negligence on the part of defendant No. 1? if so to what effect? -OPD 4. Relief. "
( 5 ) EVIDENCE has been led by the parties.
( 6 ) IMPORT of the goods being admitted and custody of the imported goods with defendant No. 1 being admitted, I need not refer to the various documents of import proved by the plaintiff. Ex. PW 1/31 reflects that UCO Bank, plaintiff s banker, remitted to the foreign buyer the sum of $ 9871, being the value of the first consignment and debited account of the plaintiff in sum of Rs. 3,88,181/-, being Rs. 3,87,200/- the value in Indian rupees. Rest sum of Rs. 981/- was the commission and processing charges of the bank. Ex. PW 1/64, establishes remittance to the foreign buyer by UCO Bank and debit in the account of the plaintiff in sum of Rs. 3,63,355/-, being Rs. 3,62,411/- the rupee value of the remittance and Rs. 944/- as processing and other charges. Ex. PW 1/85 reflects remittance by UCO Bank to the foreign buyer and debit in the account of the plaintiff in sum of Rs. 4,16,227/-, being Rs, 4,15,204/- as the rupee value of the remittance and Rs. 1023/- as bank processing charges. Ex. PW 1/8, being the deposit challan establishes payment of Rs. 1,69,823/- by the plaintiff as custom duty.
( 7 ) EX. PW 1/13, being plaintiffs letter dated 15. 7. 1998 establishes that defendant No. 1 was furnished with all requisite documents to enable the plaintiff to lift the first consignment and a request for custom examination for the other two consignments. Ex. PW 1 /14, being plaintiffs letter dated 24. 8.
