Delay in and short delivery of consignment – Deficiency in service – Carriage by Air Act 1972 – Contract Act – Consumer Protection Act

Delivery of handicrafts by Airlines – Delay in delivery and short delivery of goods -Deficiency in service – Rules 13(3), 19 and 22 of the Carriage by Air Act – Promise of agent of respondent no.1 for delivery of consignment is binding on it

The appellant – exporter of handicrafts – had given three shipments of 1538 packages weighing 26,859 kg for delivery on urgent basis in USA and on the assurance that the delivery will reach Memphis in 7 days.  The delivery schedule was given to the appellant.

The delivery of shipments as per schedule could not be given and on inquiry, the revised delivery schedule was given on 5.8.1996 for delivery on 6.8.1996.   However, even as per revised delivery schedule the consignment did not reach the destination.  Moreover, subsequent there was short delivery of 104 out of 288 cartons.  

On 4.8.1997 the appellant had given legal notice and claimed full freight refund.  Since there was no response, the appellant filed consumer complaint in the National Commission for Rs.24,48,345/- for consignment charges, Rs.20 lakhs for loss of business and reputation, US $7042.00 value of short delivery, interest and cost of litigation.

The National Commission, by the judgment dated 1.10.2012    had disposed of the complaint and limited the damages to pay Rs.20 lakhs with 9% interest payable to the appellant.

According to the appellant, the entire amount without limiting it to Rs.20 lakhs ought to have been granted since as per Rule 22(20 of Schedule III of the Act of 1972, the damages would exceed Rs.20 lakhs.

HELD that there was delay in delivery of consignment, as per the provisions of Rules 19 and 13(3) of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 the consignee is entitled to damages for delay in delivery, the promise given by the agent of the respondent no.1 for delivery in seven days was binding on respondent no.1 in view of Sections 186, 188 and 237 of the Contract Act.  However, the claim for damages exceeding Rs.20 lakhs was not accepted on the ground that a party is not entitled to seek relief which was not prayed for.

Judgment dated 9.11.2023 in M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs. Kuwait Airways & Another in Civil Appeal No.9106 of 2012 with connected matter.