2023 (11) TMI 461 - SC - Indian Laws

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

M/s. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUM Versus KUWAIT AIRWAYS & ANR.

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 ... Refund of amount being the fair charges for the consignments - Failure to deliver the export goods within stipulated time frame - Export Consignment through Air - direction for payment for compensation for loss of business and reputation - requirement to pay for value of the goods short delivered - payment for interest and well as cost of litigation - HELD THAT:- The NCDRC has not committed any illegality or perversity in recording the finding that there was delay in delivery of consignment. As a matter of fact, it is an admitted position that the consignment which was booked on 24.07.1996, was delivered after one and a half month i.e. from 03.09.1996 to 12.09.1996 - The NCDRC has rightly noted that the appellant has paid air freight which is ten times more than the sea freight only to ensure that the consignment reaches its destination within a week because sea cargo would have taken 25 to 30 days for delivery and the appellant has paid such huge freight charges for ensuring early delivery, hence, the delay in delivery of consignment has necessarily inflicted damage to the appellant which is liable to be satisfied by the respondent No.1 as provided under Section 19 and 13(3) of the Carriage by Air Act 1972. Section 186 of the Contract Act, 1872 provides that authority of an agent may be expressed or implied. Similarly, Section 188 of the Contract Act, 1872 prescribes that an agent, having an authority to do an act, has authority to do every lawful thing which is necessary in order to do such act - In the case at hand, in the absence of a plea by the respondent No.1, that the respondent no. 2 was not its agent or that he had no authority to give schedule of delivery of consignment, the onus has not been discharged. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is bound by the promise held by its agent, respondent No.2, that the goods shall be delivered within one week and when the time schedule expired and the goods were, in fact, delivered after one and a half month, there was negligent delay in delivery of consignment. 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 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. The appellant would thus claim the entire amount equivalent to US $ 50070 without limiting it to Rs. 20 lakhs - the Order passed by the NCDRC need not be interfered with - appeal dismissed. 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.