Issues for consideration: (i) Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission has committed any illegality or perversity in recording the finding that there was delay in delivery of consignment.
(ii) Whether the NCDRC was justified in not allowing the entire claim for compensation by calculating the total weight of the subject consignment in view of Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (as amended by the Hague Protocol).
Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Appellant’s case that the goods were tendered to respondent no.1 on a specific representation that the same will be delivered within seven days – However, there was delay of more than 40 days – Respondent no.1 contended that time was not the essence of contract – The NCDRC directed respondent no. 1 to pay the appellant/complainant Rs. 20 lakhs along with interest – Propriety: Held: Basing on the material available on record, the NCDRC has held that the fax message sent by respondent No.2-agent through whom the consignment was booked (24.07.1996) to be shipped by the respondent No.1 goes to show that the goods shall be delivered at Chicago Memphis on 29.07.1996, 31.07.1996 and 31.07.1996 – However, when the consignment did not reach the destination, appellant/complainant informed the respondents whereafter, the respondent no. 2 provided a revised schedule, however, the shipments did not reach the destination even as per the revised schedule, according to which the goods were to reach the destination on 06.08.1996 – The agent-respondent No.2 had admitted that at the time of booking, the complainant was informed about the tentative date of arrival of goods – Once the agent has issued a time schedule for delivery of consignment, it cannot be said that there is no material indicating that there was no agreement for delivery of the consignment in time – Respondent no.1 has never taken the stand in any of the communication arising from its office that the respondent No.2 is not its agents or that there was no agreement or promise by its agent that the consignment will be delivered in 07 days – The NCDRC has not committed any illegality or perversity in recording the finding that there was delay in delivery of consignment – Delay in the delivery of consignment has inflicted damage to the appellant – The consignee is entitled to seek damages for delay in delivering the consignment. [Paras 17, 19, 20, 21] Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III – Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – Delay in delivery of consignment – The NCDRC directed respondent no. 1 to pay the appellant/complainant Rs. 20 lakhs along with interest – Appellant/complainant submitted 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 statutory provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972:
Held: The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is mainly on account of the NCDRC not allowing the entire claim for compensation by calculating the total weight of the subject consignment by calculating the total weight of the subject consignment at 2507.5 Kg. multiplied by US $ 20 per Kg – According to the appellant, in view of Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (as amended by the Hague Protocol) the amount thus calculated would exceed the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs – However, on this point also, this Court approves and sustain the order passed by the NCDRC for the reason that in its complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant/appellant has sought damages for Rs. 20 lakhs only as compensation for loss of business and reputation – It is a trite law that a party is not entitled to seek relief which he has not prayed for. [Para 24]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Dilawari Exporters v. Alitalia Cargo & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC 754: [2010]
4 SCR 927 – relied on.
Merrrs. Trojan & Co. Vs. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar AIR 1953 SC 235: [1953] SCR 789; Krishna Priya Ganguly etc. etc. Vs. University of Lucknow & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 186: [1984] 1 SCR 302; Om Prakash & Ors. Vs. Ram Kumar & Ors. AIR 1991 SC 409; Bharat Amratlal Kothari Vs. Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 475: [2009] 15 SCR 662; Manohar Lal (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Ugrasen (Dead) by Lrs. & Ors. 2010
(11) SCC 557: [2010] 7 SCR 346 – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.