TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2011 (8) TMI 1315
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the Respondent/Plaintiff which were in its custody. The suit has been decreed for ₹ 33,060/- with interest. 2. The facts of the case are that the Respondent/Plaintiff booked a consignment of 2000 sets of integrated circuits via M/s. KLM Airlines from Singapore to Delhi. This consignment arrived in India on 22.11.1986 vide Airway bill No. 074-7075 IG No. 86/8326 in a sound condition. The said consignment was received by the Appellant/Defendant from the carrier M/s. KLM Airlines. This consignment was however subsequently found not traceable during the period, when the same was in the possession and custody of the Appellant/Defendant. The Respondent/Plaintiff on the failure of the Appellant/Defendant to pay the value of the consignme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the exchange rate of francs on the date of the loss. 4. In my opinion, the appeal is wholly without merit and is therefore liable to be dismissed. So far as the issue as to whether M/s. KLM Airlines is a necessary party and the Respondent could not sue the Appellant because there was no privity of contract between them, the same has been dealt with by the Trial Court appropriately in paragraph 9 of the impugned judgment and which reads as under: 9. It is admitted fact that M/s. KLM was carrier to whom the consignment containing goods 2000 integrated circuits was entrusted for carriage to India from Singapore and that the Defendant is handling agent of the said carrier vide Ex.DW1/1. There was no direct contract between the Plaintiff and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arise directly between the original bailor and the sub bailee, hence, it appear that the original bailor may take advantage of rules of bailment against the sub bailee, instead of relying on the ordinary rules of the law of tort. Thus, by relying on the fact that there a sub bailment, the original bailor need not prove a duty of case owned by the sub bailee under the ordinary tort if negligence, since the sub bailees will owe him all the duties of a bailee. Similarly if the original bailor sues the sub-bailee on detineue or for conversion he need prove only that the act of the sub bailee was wholly inconsistent with the sub bailee's duties qua bailee or with his contractual ties under the contract of sub-bailment i.e. he will not be ob....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lause 8(1)(b) and (c) which shows: 8.1 The carrier shall not make any claim against the handling company and shall indemnify if (subject to a hereinafter provided) against any legal liability for claims or suits including costs and expenses incidental thereto, or in respect of: (b) injury or death of any employee of the carrier and (c) damage to or delay or loss of baggage, cargo or mail carried or to be carried by the Carrier; and" As per Clause 8.1(c) the carrier shall not make any claim against the handling company and shall indemnify it against any legal liability for claims or suits including costs and expenses incidental thereto in respect of damages to or delay or loss of baggage, cargo or mail carried or to be carried by ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ntract with M/s. KLM Airlines. 6. In support of the third issue of denial of liability by having taken due care, learned Counsel for the Appellant had relied upon Sections 151 and 152 of the Contract Act,1872 which state that once bailee takes reasonable care as a prudent person with respect to the goods, the bailee is exempted. In my opinion, these Sections at the first blush may seem to apply however a deeper look shows that the Sections will not apply because when the bailment is to a carrier the contract of carriage is governed by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. In the facts of the present case, the liability would have been either of the carrier, who is the bailee or of the sub-bailee, who is the Appellant. Accordingly, since the liabi....