2023 (11) TMI 461 - SC - Indian Laws

Air cargo carrier liable for delayed export delivery despite compensation cap under Carriage by Air Act 1972

The SC dismissed an appeal regarding delayed delivery of export consignment by air cargo. The consignment booked on 24.07.1996 was delivered after one and ... Liability for delay in carriage - agent's ostensible authority and principal's liability - measure of damages for delay under the Carriage by Air Act - relief limited to the prayers in the complaintLiability for delay in carriage - measure of damages for delay under the Carriage by Air Act - There was negligent delay in delivery of the consignments and the consignee is entitled to damages for that delay under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. - HELD THAT: - The Court found on the material on record that consignments booked on 24.07.1996 were delivered only between 03.09.1996 and 12.09.1996, i.e., after one and a half months, and that the NCDRC's finding of delay was not illegal or perverse (paras 16-19). By reference to Section 19 and Section 13(3) of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 the Court accepted that the carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay and that the consignee may enforce rights where goods have not arrived after seven days of their expected arrival (para 21). The Court therefore upheld the award of compensation for delay as made by the NCDRC. [Paras 16, 19, 21]Delay in delivery was established and the consignee is entitled to damages under the Carriage by Air Act.Agent's ostensible authority and principal's liability - liability for delay in carriage - Respondent No.1 (carrier) is bound by the delivery-time commitment made by its agent (respondent No.2) and liable for the delay. - HELD THAT: - The agent admitted issuing a tentative date of arrival and a revised schedule to the complainant; respondent No.1 did not deny that respondent No.2 was its agent or that the agent had authority to give the delivery schedule (paras 17, 20-23). Applying principles of agency (Sections 186, 188 and 237 of the Contract Act as explained in Dilawari Exporters v. Alitalia Cargo), the Court held that, in absence of denial of agency or lack of authority, the principal is bound by the agent's promise and hence respondent No.1 is liable for the negligent delay caused contrary to the time schedule given by its agent (paras 20-23). [Paras 17, 20, 22, 23]The carrier is bound by its agent's delivery commitment and liable for the delay in delivery.Relief limited to the prayers in the complaint - The NCDRC correctly limited the award to the amount claimed in the complaint; the appellant cannot be granted a larger sum than prayed for. - HELD THAT: - Although the calculation under the applicable rule would have produced a sum in excess of the Rs. 20 lakhs claimed, the Court affirmed the NCDRC's approach that a party is not entitled to relief beyond what it has prayed for in the complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act (para 24). The Court relied on settled precedent that relief cannot be granted beyond the pleadings and prayer, and therefore upheld the limitation of the award to the claimed amount. [Paras 16, 24]Compensation award properly limited to the amount claimed in the complaint; excess cannot be granted.Final Conclusion: The appeals are dismissed; the NCDRC's award that respondent no.1 pay the complainant compensation (limited to the claimed Rs. 20 lakhs with interest), litigation costs and additional compensation as ordered is upheld. Parties shall bear their own costs. Issues Involved:1. Delay in delivery of consignment.2. Short delivery of goods.3. Compensation for loss and damages.Summary:1. Delay in Delivery of Consignment:The appellant, an exporter of handicrafts, had shipped goods to the USA through the respondents with an assurance of delivery within seven days. The goods were tendered on 22.07.1996 and were supposed to reach by 31.07.1996. However, the consignments were delayed and delivered only between 03.09.1996 to 12.09.1996, causing a delay of over 40 days. The NCDRC initially found no deficiency in service due to lack of specific delivery date commitment but upon remand by the Supreme Court, it was established that the respondents were negligent and liable for the delay. The NCDRC awarded compensation based on the weight of the consignment, calculating damages as per the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.2. Short Delivery of Goods:The appellant claimed that 104 cartons were short delivered out of 288 cartons. The NCDRC initially directed compensation for the short delivery based on Rule 22 of the Carriage by Air Act, multiplying the short-delivered weight by US $20 per Kg. This amount was to be paid with interest from 01.10.1996. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, confirming the short delivery and the corresponding compensation.3. Compensation for Loss and Damages:The appellant sought compensation for loss of business and reputation, value of goods short delivered, interest, and litigation costs. The NCDRC awarded Rs. 20 lakhs for the delay and additional Rs. 5 lakhs for harassment and mental agony. The appellant's plea for higher compensation based on the total weight of the consignment was dismissed as the claim was limited to Rs. 20 lakhs in the original complaint. The Supreme Court upheld the NCDRC's decision, stating that a party cannot seek relief beyond what was originally claimed.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed both civil appeals, affirming the NCDRC's order for compensation due to delay and short delivery, and maintaining the awarded amounts within the limits of the original claim. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and any pending applications were disposed of.