The main legal point established in the judgment is the carrier's duty of care, the consignor's obligations under the contract of carriage, and the reasonableness of the carrier's actions in response to non-delivery of the consignment.

Mr. Raghunath Prasad, Member—This is an appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) against the judgment and order dated 23.10.1996 passed by District Consumer Forum, Mirzapur in complaint case No. 190/94.

2. A complaint was filed by the respondent/complainant claiming relief of compensation of Rs. 5.00 lacs on the ground that the complainant booked 12 rolls consisting of 60 pieces of Indian Handknotted woollen pile carpets on 16.6.1992 for a price amounting Rs. 4,19,600.16 to be carried from New Delhi to Amsterdam, Holland through opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 and invoice No. 23 was issued in respect of above material. The said consignment was handed over by complainant to opposite party No. 3 at Mirzapur who handed over the said rolls of carpets’ 60 pieces consignment to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 at New Delhi for their shipment from New Delhi to Amsterdam, Holland. The opposite party No. 1 after receiving the goods issued to complainant Cover Note No. Airway Bill No. 220-2355-7730 dated 19.6.1992 Delhi/Amsterdam in respect of above consignment. When the aforesaid consignment arrived Amsterdam the complainant’s original buyer consignee M/s. Davoud Perzische Tapijten, ADM., DE, Ruyterweg 50, 1056 GK Amsterdam did not take delivery of the goods in question due to any reason. It was further alleged that thereafter the complainant visited Amsterdam and negotiated and settled the matter with the buyer but as the documents relating to the consignment in question had in the meantime returned back to India by the correspondent bank the buyer assured the complainant that as soon as the documents are sent back to the buyer, the buyer will retire the same at once but because of the extraordinary incident in India on 6.12.1992 the law and order was disturbed and documents could not be sent in time to the correspondent bank. It was further alleged that since the instructions were not deliberately carried out to arrange to store the goods in question in a bonded warehouse the intimation about the alternative buyer was given to the appellant but details still were not sent by the appellant and the retirement of goods was avoided by the appellant on the ground of non-receipt of the storage charges and subsequently it was alleged that the appellant got the goods auctioned causing irreparable loss, hence the complaint.

3. In the written statement the plea of the appellant was that the consignment booked on 19.6.1992 was airlifted from New Delhi to Amsterdam and the same was airlifted from New Delhi under Airway Bill No. 220-2355-7730 dated 19.6.1992. It was carried to its destination in accordance with the terms and conditions of the contract of carriage and the said consignment reached the airport of destination safe but despite repeated remainders remained undelivered as the consignee failed to pick up the consignment from airport. Thereafter the complainant was kept duly informed about the delivery status of the consignment vide letters dated 5.8.1992, 25.8.1992, 27.8.1992 and even the complainant was warned of the eventuality of the consignment being confiscated and consequently being auctioned by the local custom authority at Amsterdam in case the consignment continued to remain undelivered. It was further pleaded that notwithstanding that the aforesaid consignment remained undelivered the complainant failed to give any alternate instructions to the appellant and their reminder dated 3.9.1992, 10.9.1992, 13.10.1992 and November 19, 1992 nothing was done. It was further averred that on sending letter dated 25.11.1992 the complainant informed the appellant that the consignee has finally agreed to take delivery of the consignment and the complainant agreed to pay off the outstanding charges. The compliance was not made and from time-to-time promises were made but the consignment were not got released and ultimately vide letter of July 2, 1993 the complainant was informed that the consignment