Carrier liability for improper cargo delivery, with statutory jurisdiction and limitation provisions prevailing over contractual restrictions.

Under the Carriage by Air Act framework, Rule 29 was treated as permitting proceedings before a forum with domestic jurisdiction, and the National Commission was held to have jurisdiction on the value of the claim. Delivery of cargo without bank verification, without notice to the consignee, and without following shipper instructions was treated as deficiency in service, with the carrier remaining liable despite reliance on its agent or alleged address defects. A contractual 120-day complaint clause could not override the statutory scheme; the two-year limitation under Rule 30 applied, and the complaint was found within time. The carrier was therefore held liable for improper delivery, with compensation, interest, and costs awarded.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the National Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Rule 29 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972; (ii) whether delivery of the cargo without verifying the bank shipment and without notice to the consignee amounted to deficiency in service; (iii) whether the complaint was barred by limitation or by the contractual 120-day clause.

Issue (i): whether the National Commission had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint under Rule 29 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.

Analysis: Rule 29 permits an action for damages in the territory of a High Contracting Party before the court having jurisdiction where the carrier has its principal place of business, an establishment by which the contract was made, or at the place of destination. The contract of carriage was made at Bombay, but under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 the value of the claim placed the matter within the original jurisdiction of the National Commission and outside the jurisdiction of the District Forum and State Commission. Rule 29 was read as requiring a court having jurisdiction under the domestic forum structure, and Rule 33 did not arise independently because the jurisdictional rule itself was clear.

Conclusion: The complaint was properly filed before the National Commission and the jurisdictional objection failed.

Issue (ii): whether delivery of the cargo without verifying the bank shipment and without notice to the consignee amounted to deficiency in service.

Analysis: The airway bill mentioned the consignee, the notifying party, and the letter of credit number, which indicated that the shipment was to move through the bank. The carrier was required to notify the consignee on arrival and, if the consignee could not be communicated with, to follow the shipper's instructions. The carrier and its agent nevertheless handed over the cargo for road carriage and delivery without taking bank release or verifying the consignee details. The carrier could not avoid responsibility by relying on the alleged incompleteness of the address or by shifting blame to its agent, since the agent acted for the carrier.

Conclusion: The carrier committed deficiency in service and remained liable for the loss.

Issue (iii): whether the complaint was barred by limitation or by the contractual 120-day clause.

Analysis: The contractual clause requiring a complaint within 120 days could not override the statutory regime under the Second Schedule. Rule 30 provides a two-year period for bringing an action for damages, and Rule 33 renders void any contractual term that purports to alter the rules on jurisdiction or the applicable regime. The complaint was filed within two years from the date of arrival at destination.

Conclusion: The complaint was within limitation and the contractual 120-day objection was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The carrier was held liable for improper delivery of the cargo, the jurisdictional and limitation objections were rejected, and compensation with interest and costs was awarded to the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: Under the Carriage by Air Act, a carrier must comply with the treaty-based delivery and notice obligations, cannot rely on a contractual clause to dilute the statutory jurisdiction or limitation scheme, and remains responsible for deficient delivery even where the shipment is handled through its agent.

---