Back
High Court Of Delhi
RAMNATH EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED - Appellant
Versus
CHAIRMAN, AIR INDIA - Respondent
Suit 400 of 1983
Decided On : 05/19/2003
Goods - Recovery Suit - Air India Act, Section 4 - Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery on account of cost of goods shipped to Denmark through Air India. The consignment was not delivered in time, leading to losses for the plaintiff. The defendants absolved themselves of liability, claiming that the consignee refused to accept the goods and that the liability, if any, lies with the carriers involved in the transit. The court found the defendants liable for the non-delivery of the consignment within a reasonable time, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the consignment and related losses.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff firm shipped goods to Denmark through Air India, but the consignment was not delivered in time, leading to losses for the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the defendants liable for the non-delivery of the consignment within a reasonable time, decreeing the suit in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the consignment and related losses.
Issues: The issues included the authority of the plaintiff, maintainability of the suit, non-joinder of other parties, breach of contract, entitlement to damages, and relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The defendants were found liable for the non-delivery of the consignment within a reasonable time, absolving the plaintiff from proving specific damages and losses for the non-delivery.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the value of the consignment and related losses, with interest at 12% per annum.
( 1 ) THIS is a suit for recovery on account of cost of goods shipped by the plaintiff for delivery to the buyers at Denmark booked through the defendants. The plaintiff firm is engaged in business of import and export. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the plaintiff was placed with an order from Denmark buyer m/s. Gording Skofabrik A/s, Alunden 2,6690 Cording, for supply of 3000 pairs of leather Shoe Uppers to be consigned to M/s. Gording Skofabrik A/s, Alunden 2, 6690 Gording, Denmark through their agent M/s. Senn-Nordica Aps, Denmark vide his Telex Message No. 12610-LJ dated 24. 11. 80 and plaintiff proforma invoice no. 213/80-1353 dated 18. 12. 80 for Rs. 2,30,193. 75 duly confirmed by the consignee.
( 2 ) THE plaintiff firm at the first instance shipped 30 packages containing the footwear uppers vide their invoice No. 213/81-1266 for Rs. 1,15,608. 75 under Air india Airway Bill No. 098-32259861 dated 7. 3. 81 from Delhi to Esbjerg Airport, copenhagen, Denmark. The plaintiff firm thereafter shipped the balance 30 packages of the consignment under the order of the buyer and shipped the same under Air india Airway Bill No. 098-32260163 dated 12. 3. 81.
( 3 ) THE shipment under Airway Bill dated 12. 3. 81 was duly delivered to the consignee in Denmark. The consignment under Airway Bill dated 7. 3. 81 which was airlifted from Delhi to Bombay on Flight No. AI-195 dated 13. 3. 81 and from Bombay to Luxemberg Germany on Flight No. AI-2044 dated 16. 3. 81 was not delivered to the consignee.
( 4 ) THE plaintiff firm had asked the Cargo Sales Manager, Air India, New Delhi vide their Telex No. 3136 dated 2. 4. 81 to confirm flight number from Luxemberg to esbjerg Airport, Copenhagen because the buyers of the plaintiff firm had not received the consignment.
( 5 ) THE plaintiff was informed by their clearing agent that the subject consignment had been misplaced in transit in which the defendants ought to be liable for the damages on account of losses suffered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff firm lodged a claim on defendant No. 2 for the losses involved to the tune of Rs. 6,57,175. 66 vide their letter No. REL. 213/81-19496 dated 30. 4. 81 as detailed in para 8 of the plaint.
( 6 ) THE Clearing Agents of the plaintiff firm M/s. Lemuir Air Express requested the Cargo Sales Manager, Air India vide their letter No. AF/6257/379/80-81 dated 6. 5. 81 to settle the claim of the plaintiff. Subsequently, the plaintiff firm vide their letter No. REL. 213/81-16961 dated 18. 8. 81 forwarded to the defendants the documents as required vide Air India Letter No. DL/pr-CL-48-2736/gbr dated 12. 5. 81 with a view to enable the defendants to take necessary action in the matter.
( 7 ) ON 31. 8. 81 vide their cargo irregularity report the defendants informed the plaintiff firm that the subject consignment was lying undelivered and heavy storage charges were accruing and finally the defendants asked for alternative disposal instructions. The plaintiff firm vide their letter No. REL. 213 /4-81 /17104 dated 4. 9. 81 apprised the defendants of the true facts.
( 8 ) THERE was protracted correspondence during the period 7. 9. 81 to 21. 4. 82 between the plaintiff firm and their agents M/s. Lemuir Air Express on one hand and the defendants on the other culminating in the issuance of defendants letter No. DL/fr-CL/48 dated 21. 4. 82 addressed to the plaintiff firm intimating that the head office of the defendants was seized of the matter and that the defendants were reminding them.
( 9 ) THEREAFTER, the defendants office vide letter No. DL/fr-CL/1969 dated 31. 5. 82 informed the plaintiff firm that the consignment in question has been received on 1. 6. 81 and delivered to the consignee after necessary bank release on 3. 6. 81 and as such the case stood closed. Due to inordinate delay in the delivery of the consignment to the consignee, the plaintiff firm had lost quite a good business with resultant huge losses and further loss of reputat
AI
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
