SAWHNEY BROTHERS Vs. ALITALIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is directed against the order dated 25th June, 1993 passed by the Delhi State Commission dismissing the complaint of M/s. Sawhney Brothers, the complainant, against Alitalia, the opposite party and leaving the complainant to seek its remedy by way of civil suit.

(2.) The facts which are not in dispute may be first noticed. M/s. Mac Air Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi entrusted on behalf of the complainant as consignor a consignment of 40 packages for carriage to the opposite party which issued the Airway Bill No. 055/56339113 dated 2.7.1991. The consignee mentioned in the Airway Bill was Banca Populare Di Sondrio via Carlo, Alberto No. 61A, Roma and instructions given to the opposite party were that the consignment was to be delivered to the said consignee against the presentation of the original Airway Bill and other documents. The complainant drew a bill dated 6.7.1991 for US Dollars 14,656.57 and delivered that to the Bank of Rajasthan, New Delhi for collection alongwith necessary documents against said Airway Bill. The said consignment was carried by the opposite party to the destination, but the consignee had not taken delivery of the said consignment. The complainant was informed by the opposite party in its letter dated 13.8.1991 and again by letter dated 27.8.1991 of that fact. The complainant by its letter dated 12.9.1991 requested the opposite party to advise its last delivery carrier to keep the consignment under Custom bonded area till further instructions. The complainant changed the consignee's name to M/s. Frorentia SLR Plaza Manfedo Fanti, 26-27, Roma, Italy and informed the opposite party by letter dated 6.11.1991 to deliver the consignment against said Airway Bill to the new consignee. The opposite party acceded to this request and agreed to deliver the consignment to the amended consignee but the amended consignee also refused to accept the shipment stating that the charges involved were too high. The opposite party by its letter dated 10.12.1991 informed M/s. Mac Air Pvt. Ltd., the agent of the complainant of this fact and sought alternative disposal instructions at the earliest or else the consignment would be treated as abandoned (Annexure II to the complaint). The complainant by its letter dated 28.2.1992 asked to opposite party to deliver the consignment to another substituted consignee i.e. M/s. Art Deco I.T.D., EWA Zaborowska 02-758, Warszawa UI Neseberska, 4M 201 Poland. These facts have been found established on record by the State Commission.

(3.) The complainant's case in the complaint is that the opposite party was requested by the letter dated 28.2.1992 to re-forward the consignment to the said alternative buyer followed by reminder dated 16.3.1992. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party in its letter dated 12.3.1992 stated that documents were delivered to the consignee's agents but the consignee refused to take physical delivery due to high storage charges. It was further alleged that the complainant informed the opposite party immediately on 27.3.1992 that the opposite party was already informed that all the demurrage incurred on the shipment at Rome would be borne by the complainant and the same would be paid in Delhi on demand, that re- forwarding charges from Rome to Poland would be paid by the alternative buyer at the time of taking delivery of the goods and that even then instructions were not followed and the opposite party did not carry the goods to Poland. The complainant alleged the negligence of the opposite party in failing to forward the consignment to the final destination on collection of the charges. The complainant claimed the value of the consignment, interest and compensation amounting to US Dollars 26,229.00 with future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of complaint till the date of payment besides costs.