S. Rajendra Babu, J.—This appeal arises out of an order made by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short ‘the National Commission’) in the original petition before it.

2. The facts leading to this appeal are as follows :

In the original petition before the National Commission, the appellant, M/s. Saddler Shoes Pvt. Ltd., acting through their agent M/s. Sheriff Travel and Cargo Service Pvt. Ltd. booked two consignments of leather garments for transportation from Madras to Gdansk in Poland as per the two airway bills dated May 11, 1991. According to appellant, the goods reached the destination at Poland but the respondents did not inform the consignees about their arrival and did not deliver the goods to the said consignees; that some time in July, 1991, the appellant came to know that the consignees were not interested in taking the delivery of the good consigned and thereafter they located another purchaser in Gothenburg, Sweden who was willing to purchase the said goods; that, therefore, the appellant requested the respondents to redirect the two consignments to Gothenburg, Sweden; that in spite of repeated requests the respondents failed to carry out the appellant’ instructions for re-routing the goods to Gothenburg, Sweden as a result of which the new intended purchaser cancelled the order resulting in financial loss and other damages arising as a result of inconvenience, mental anxiety and worry. On the question of payment of demurrage charges as claimed by the respondents it was stated that such liability would not have arisen had the respondents discharged their duty properly. The appellant contended that under paragraph 2.7.1. of the Air Cargo Tariff Rules, published by the International Air Transport Association, it is the duty of the carrier to promptly inform the appellant about the failure of the consignee to take delivery of the goods and in not carrying out the said duty the respondents had been guilty of negligence which constitutes ‘deficiency’ in service. On three grounds it is urged that: (i) Air India had not informed the consignees at Poland of the arrival of the goods and deliver the goods to the consignees in Gdansk; (ii) they had not acted on the instructions of the appellant to reship the goods and deliver the same to the consignee in Sweden, and (iii) Air India had not promptly informed the appellant about its difficulty in carrying out the appellant’s instructions to reship the goods to Sweden, the respondents had been wilfully negligent and guilty of deficiency in service and the appellant sought for compensation of Rs. 31.52 lakhs as representing the loss and damage caused to him under various heads set out in the complaint.

3. Air India contended that their obligation was to carry the consignment booked by the appellant to a destination specified by them, namely, Gdansk in Poland and this obligation had been duly carried out by them inasmuch as the consignments involved had safely reached the Airport, Gdansk in Poland on May 26, 1991. Inasmuch as Air India did not operate any service to Gdansk in Poland, it had arranged with LOT Polish Airlines for he transportation of the consignments in question from Frankfurt to Gdansk and through them the consignments were safely carried to the destination. After the arrival of the consignments in the said port of destination the Polish Airlines gave a notice of the arrival of the consignments to the consignees concerned and even though reminders were also sent to the consignees there was no response from them. The consignments, therefore, remained undelivered at the Gdansk Airport. Much later the appellant conveyed a request that the consignments should be re-routed to Sweden and Air India contacted the LOT Polish Airlines to ascertain the demurrage and customs charges that had to be paid to the Polish authorities at Gdansk Airport since the goods had remained undelivered in the airport for a long time. The appellant was also inform