TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the carrier was liable for compensation for negligent delay in delivery of the air consignment; (ii) whether the principal was bound by the delivery schedule promised by its agent; and (iii) whether compensation could exceed the amount claimed in the complaint.
Issue (i): Whether the carrier was liable for compensation for negligent delay in delivery of the air consignment.
Analysis: The delivery schedule issued at the time of booking, the revised schedule, and the admitted delivery of the goods only after about one and a half months established that the consignment was not delivered within the promised time. The statutory scheme under the Carriage by Air Act made the carrier liable for damage occasioned by delay, and the consignee was entitled to enforce the contractual rights when the goods had not arrived within the stipulated period.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant and delay-based liability was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the principal was bound by the delivery schedule promised by its agent.
Analysis: The booking was made through the agent, who communicated the expected delivery time and the revised schedule. The carrier did not establish that the agent lacked authority or acted beyond the scope of agency. On the settled principles governing express, implied, and ostensible authority, the principal was bound by the agent's promise regarding time-bound delivery.
Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant and the carrier was held bound by the agent's commitment.
Issue (iii): Whether compensation could exceed the amount claimed in the complaint.
Analysis: The complaint had sought compensation for loss of business and reputation only up to a specified amount. Since a party cannot be awarded relief beyond what was prayed for, the compensation could not be enhanced merely on the basis of a higher calculation under the carriage regime.
Conclusion: The issue was decided against the appellant and the compensation was confined to the amount claimed.
Final Conclusion: The findings on delay and liability were affirmed, but the monetary relief was restricted to the pleaded claim, and the appeals were not entitled to any further interference.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a carrier's agent issues a delivery schedule and the carrier fails to disprove the agent's authority, the principal is bound by that commitment and is liable for delay under the carriage-by-air regime, but monetary relief cannot exceed the claim made in the pleadings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
