The case of the appellant/complainant is that it is an exporter of all kinds of handicrafts goods to several countries including USA. 1 expressed its inability to deliver the consignments as per the delivery schedule provided to the appellant and a revised delivery schedule was given on 05.08.1996, which mentioned the date of delivery on 06.08.1996. On 07.09.1996, the appellant/complainant made a modest claim against the respondents for refund of full freight.
Learned counsel further submits that once the NCDRC arrives at the conclusion that there is delay in delivery of consignment due to negligence of respondent no. 1 should not be held liable for delay in service, as in spite of being aware of the fact, the appellant sent the consignment through Kuwait Airways, which has various stops over at Kuwait, Chicago and Memphis, which would consume a lot of time period to deliver the consignment.
Challenging the above order dated 21.05.2003 of the NCDRC, the complainant preferred Civil Appeal bearing C.A.No.
Basing on the material available on record, the NCDRC has held that the fax message sent by respondent No.2-agent through whom the consignment was booked to be shipped by the respondent No.1 goes to show that the goods shall be delivered at Chicago Memphis on 29.07.1996, 31.07.1996 and 31.07.1996. 2 provided a revised schedule, however, the shipments did not reach the destination even as per the revised schedule, according to which the goods were to reach the destination on 06.08.1996. respondent no.1 – Kuwait Airways has never taken the stand in any of the communication arising from its office that the respondent No.2 is not its agents or that there was no agreement or promise by its agent that the consignment will be delivered in 07 days.
The provisions contained in Section 19 and 13 (3) of the Carriage by Air Act 1972 read as follows: “19. The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by delay in the carriage by air of passengers, luggage or goods.” “13 (3).
Section 186 of the Contract Act, 1872 (for short “the Contract Act”) lays down that the authority of an agent may be expressed or implied.
There is no gainsaying that onus to show that the act done by an agent was within the scope of his authority or ostensible authority held or exercised by him is on the person claiming against the principal. Therefore, the respondent No.1 is bound by the promise held by its agent – respondent No.2, that the goods shall be delivered within one week and when the time schedule expired and the goods were, in fact, delivered after one and a half month, there was negligent delay in delivery of consignment. According to the appellant, in view of Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (as amended by the Hague Protocol) the amount thus calculated would exceed the sum of Rs.
The appellant would thus claim the entire amount equivalent to US $ 50070 without limiting it to Rs.
Dosukhan Samadkhan Sindhi & Ors., Manohar Lal (Dead) by Lrs.
Case Title: M/S. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUM Vs. KUWAIT AIRWAYS .
Case Number: C.A. No.-009106-009106 / 2012
