ANCHIT EXPORTS Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.07.2006 of the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (in short, 'the State Commission').

(2.) The appellant was the complainant before the State Commission and the respondents were the opposite parties (OPs) and are referred to hereafter by their status before the State Commission. The complainant filed the complaint with the allegation that it had entrusted its cargo of 13 packages containing various handicrafts and similar items to OP 3 on 10.02.1995, which was its handling and forwarding agent. The cargo was to be shipped by air to Durban, South Africa for display at the Indo-Durban Expo '95 scheduled to be held there during 23.02- 02.03.1995. The complainant was one of the delegates from India to that Expo. OP 3, in turn, booked the cargo for shipment with OP 1 and issued the airway bill dated 14.02.1995, with M/s Danzas Sa Transport Pvt. Ltd. as the consignee because the latter was the official freight forwarder and customs clearing agent for the Expo. The declared value of the cargo for the purpose of customs was US $1700. The complainant paid the freight of Rs.42,840/- for the shipment by air from Mumbai. According to the complainant, both OPs 1 and 3 were informed that the cargo consisted of exhibits to be displayed and sold at the Durban Expo which was scheduled to open on 23.02.1995 and, therefore, the cargo must reach Durban by 19.02.1995 for customs clearance and display in time. However, the cargo did not reach Durban on 19.02.1995, whereupon the complainant informed OP 3 that if the cargo did not leave Mumbai by 21.02.1995, there would be no point to send it at all as it would be too late for the exhibition. OP 3 in turn, informed the complainant that due to heavy load problem, 3400 kg of cargo items (all exhibits for the Expo) had to be off-loaded by Air India at Mumbai and that the complainant's consignment had been rescheduled for loading on flight no. AI 213 of 22.02.1995 for Durban. Even then the consignment did not reach Durban on 23.02.1995 and the complainant could not display anything at the Expo except the few articles which the company representatives had been able to carry with them as personal baggage. By fax dated 23.02.1995, the complainant again notified OP 3 that the cargo had not arrived at Durban and advised that the cargo be sent back from Mumbai to Delhi at the cost of the airlines (OP 1). By fax dated 25.02.1995, OP 3 reconfirmed to the complainant that OP 1 had assured to return the cargo as it had still not moved from Mumbai and it was futile to send it to Durban at that belated stage. The cargo was finally returned to the complainant on 10.05.1995. This led the complaint being filed claiming compensation of Rs.19 lakh on various counts.

(3.) In the written version before the State Commission, OPs 1 and 2 denied the allegations and stated that they had no knowledge of the Expo at Durban which was scheduled to be opened on 23.02.1995 or that the consignment of the complainant had to reach Durban by 19.02.1995. The consignment was booked by OP 3 with OP 1 and 2 on 14.02.1995 and it was accepted for shipment from Mumbai to Durban subject to cargo flight schedule and availability of space in the flight of the OP 1. OP 3 had also not advised that the consignment had to be shipped within any specified time or that it had to be delivered at Durban by a particular date. OPs 1 and 2 did not give any assurance to the complainant that the consignment would reach Durban on 19.02.1995 to be in time for the Expo. As per the contract of shipment the consignment had been duly forwarded from Delhi to Mumbai where it was kept for air freighting to Durban. OPs 1 and 2 further contended that there was no delay considering the normal time required for such transportation and the consignment would have reached Durban at most within 12 days.