S L EXPORTS Vs. SINGAPORE AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This complaint has been filed by M/s. S.L. Exports alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party (O.P.) Singapore Airlines.

(2.) Briefly facts of the case as they emerge from the complaint are, that this complainant got an order for export of a piece of Granite from Japan. It was to be a piece of 20 tonnes. A meeting reportedly took place in Madras on 14.11.1994 where alongwith the parties before us, a representative of the importer was also present. Allegedly during this meeting it was felt that one piece of 20 tonnes of granite would be difficult to handle by way of air cargo hence the weight of the cargo needs to be reduced. It was also allegedly agreed in this meeting that the cargo would be airlifted before 25.11.1994. Time was the essence of the entire transaction. In pursuance of this meeting the complainant sent three pieces of granite weighing less than 5 tonnes a piece, despite O.P.'s offer to lift cargo upto 10 tonnes a piece, on 21.11.1994 for which three Airway Bills were issued, when it was also brought to the notice of the opposite party, that cargo has to be airlifted on or before 25.11.1994. On 25.11.1994 the complainants were informed by the O.P. that they have not succeeded in airlifting the cargo for following reasons :

(3.) The complainant vide a telefax dated 27.11.1994 informed the O.P. that they must make arrangement to lift it within the next 48 hours from 27.11.1994, otherwise, legal action would follow. Since the cargo could not be airlifted within the above time limit prescribed by the complainant, vide its telefax dated 30.11.1994, the complainant decided to retrieve the shipment from the custody of the O.P. causing heavy losses not only in the present transaction but also with regard to future transactions. 'Lapse' in rendering services on their part has been admitted by O.P. vide its communication dated 1.12.1994. Main plank of the complaint is that having agreed to airlift cargo during a meeting on 14.11.1994 and the complainant having agreed to reduce the weight of the cargo and yet failing to airlift it within the agreed time frame - where time was the essence of the contract - is a deficiency of service on the part of the O.P. - resulting in heavy losses to the complainant. The complainant has preferred this complaint claiming Rs. 79 lakhs for the O.P. on account of deficiency in service, comprising Profit Margin, amount paid payable as compensation to the consignee for his losses, and cost, of Rs. 49 lakhs, Rs. 25 lakhs, and Rs. 5 lakhs respectively.