INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY Vs. TELEVISTA ELECTRONICS PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is to the impugned judgment dated 25.2.1999 which has decreed the suit for recovery of money of the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/defendant, on account of the appellant/defendant having lost the goods of the respondent/plaintiff which were in its custody. THE suit has been decreed for Rs.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 consignment, filed the subject suit for recovery of the value of the consignment and which has been decreed.

(3.) I completely agree with the findings and conclusions of the Trial Court in the aforesaid paragraph. The law in this regard is clear that the bailor can directly sue the sub-bailee with respect to the value of the goods which have been lost. Further, there cannot be a defence that the appellant will not be liable because of a contract of the appellant with M/s. KLM Airlines, (Clause 8(1)(c) of the Contract) which provides that in case of any loss or damage the appellant will be indemnified by the carrier. The Trial Court has rightly held that the contract between the appellant and the carrier KLM Airlines will only operate inter se the appellant and the Airlines, and it cannot, in any manner, alter or take away the liability of the appellant towards the respondent whose consignment was lost. I therefore reject the argument that the suit was bad because of non-joinder of M/s. KLM Airlines or there was no privity of contract with the appellant and the respondent and therefore the appellant could not be sued and that the appellant could be exempted by virtue of Clause 8(1)(c) of its contract with M/s. KLM Airlines.