LAWS(NCD)-2003-7-321

KUSHAL CHAND DANGER Vs. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD

Decided On July 22, 2003
KUSHAL CHAND DANGER Appellant
V/S
SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant, on dismissal of his Complaint No.3223 of 1994 by the District Forum, Jaipur-I, vide order dated 29.6.1995, is in appeal before us.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsels for the parties. On 17.1.1994, the appellant had hired the services of respondent No.2 through respondent No.1, their booking agent at Jaipur, to carry a parcel of precious stones valued at Rs.2,71,049 and deliver the same to M/s. M. E. M. Zackey at Singapore. The cargo was duly transported by respondent No.1 to Singapore but since the delivery thereof was not taken by the said party, the appellant, vide his letter dated 4.2.1994, required respondent No.1 to re-transport the parcel to Jaipur. By its Fax Message passed to the appellant on 26.2.1994, respondent No.1 required him to send a Demand Draft for Rs.27,104/- towards charges for freight, storage and demurrage. Along with his letter dated 26.2.1994 the appellant sent to respondent No.1 a draft of the aforesaid amount contending at the same time that he was liable to any charges for storage and demurrage upto 4.2.1994 only. By their Telex Message dated 4.3.1994 (Annexure 7) respondent No.1 furnished the details of charges amounting to Rs.34,188/- upto 8.3.194 and giving set off of Rs.27,104/- thereto requested the appellant to remit the balance amount of Rs.7,084 before 8.3.1994. The aforesaid amount was remitted by the appellant to respondent No.1 on 7.3.1994. However, respondent No.1 re-despatched the cargo on freight-to-pay basis and the appellant had to take delivery thereof after making payment of the freight, loading-unloading charges and storage charges amounting to Rs.42,004/- on 27.3.1994. The amount of Rs.34,188/- (Rs.27,104 + Rs.7,084) was, admittedly, refunded by the respondents to the appellant on 28.3.1994.

(3.) The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that once the appellant had required the respondents on 4.2.1994 for sending the cargo back from Singapore to Jaipur, he could have been charged for storage and demurrage upto 4.2.1994 only and that in sending back the cargo as late as on 27.3.1994 and charging a sum of Rs.42,004/- for freight, storage, demurrage, etc. , etc. at the time of delivery of the cargo to the appellant were acts of deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.