Read Time: 10 minutes

Synopsis

Holding that a party is not entitled to seek relief which has not been prayed for, the Supreme Court has declined to interfere with an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) disallowing entire claim of compensation due to delay in delivery of a consignment of handicraft goods to the United States.

A bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Prashant Kumar Mishra dismissed cross civil appeals filed by M/s Rajasthan Art Emporium and Kuwait Airways against the NCDRC's order of October 1, 2012.

The Consumer Commission had ordered Kuwait Airways to pay Rajasthan Art Emporium US Dollar 500750/- or Rs 20 lakhs along with 9% per annum compensation with effect from July 31, 1996 till its realization. 

According to the facts of the case, the consignment booked by Emporium for the USA did not reach the destination as per schedule and the revised schedule. Subsequently, a short delivery was made, forcing the Emporium to send a legal notice which evoked no response. The complainant then approached the NCDRC.

The Commission, in 2003 order, noted there has been a short delivery of 104 pieces equal to 1822 Kgs. Therefore, in view of Rule 22 of Carriage by Air Act, multiplying this weight by US Dollar 20 per Kg, the amount payable work out to US Dollar 36440 which becomes payable to the complainant for the loss of goods. This amount was directed to be paid along with interest at the rate 9% from October 01, 1996.

However, on appeal by the complainant, the apex court in 2011 remitted back the matter to the NCDRC, noting the issue concerning delay in delivery of goods has been decided by without appreciating the material and evidence available on record. 

In its order, the NCDRC held that there was delay in delivering the consignment on time for which the complainant is entitled to compensation of 25037.5 Kg multiplied by US Dollar 20 Kg each which comes to US Dollar 500750 that exceed the sum of Rs 20 lakhs claimed by the complainant therefore the complainant was only entitled to have compensation of Rs 20 lakhs along with interest at the rate of 9% w.e.f. July 31, 1996 till its realisation as also the litigation charges and compensation for harassment and mental agony in the sum of Rs 5 lakhs. 

After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials on record, the bench said, "We are satisfied that the NCDRC has not committed any illegality or perversity in recording the finding that there was delay in delivery of consignment."

The bench pointed out as a matter of fact, it was an admitted position that the consignment which was booked on July 24, 1996, was delivered after one and a half month i.e. from September 03, 1996 to September 12, 1996.

"Once the agent has issued a time schedule for delivery of consignment, it cannot be said that there is no material indicating that there was no agreement for delivery of the consignment in time. respondent no 1, Kuwait Airways has never taken the stand in any of the communication arising from its office that the respondent No.2 (Dagga Air Agents) is not its agents or that there was no agreement or promise by its agent that the consignment will be delivered in 07 days," top court added.

The court further said the NCDRC had 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.

"The goods were, in fact, delivered after one and a half month, there was negligent delay in delivery of consignment," the bench said. The grievance of the appellant in the appeal was 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 Dollar 20 per Kg.

"However, on this point also, we approve and sustain the order passed by the NCDRC for the reason that in its complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant/appellant has sought damages for Rs 20 lakhs only as compensation for loss of business and reputation. It is a trite law that a party is not entitled to seek relief which he has not prayed for," the bench said.

Case Title: M/S. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUM vs. KUWAIT AIRWAYS & ANR.