INTERFREIGHT SERVICES PVT. LTD. vs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

THIS order will dispose of the above mentioned appeals as both of them have arisen out of the order dated 8th February, 1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu. The former appeal has been filed by the party who was complainant before the State Commission while the latter appeal has been filed by the opposite party No. 1 in the complaint. It may be mentioned here that the Collector of Customs, Madras had been impleaded as opposite party No. 2 in the complaint and now he is one of the Respondents in these appeals. By the impugned order the State Commission has ordered the 1st opposite party to pay Rs. 45,454/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from 5th December, 1991 till payment plus Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the complainants. As against the second opposite party i.e., the Collector of Customs, the complaint was dismissed.

THE facts leading to these appeals are that the 1st complainant, Interfreight Services Pvt. Ltd. had to airfreight certain cargo of shoe-uppers of one of its constituents by name Hosak Industries. The consignment consisted of 5 packets having separate serial numbers. The consignment was custom bonded i.e., in the custody of customs. The consignment was brought to the Airport on 5.12.91 with the Customs Preventive Officer for clearance required for its export. The 1st complainant engaged the services of the second complainant for customs clearance of the cargo. The consignment was kept on the ramp. The opposite party No. 1 issued receipt on payment of Rs. 36/- for handling and storing of the cargo. The second complainant thereafter on the same day approached the appraising staff of the customs with the shipping bill to complete inspection formalities. The appraising staff directed the production of consignment for inspection. The second complainant went to opposite party No. 1 requesting them to forward the consignment for inspection of the appraising staff of the custom. At this point of time it was noticed that one of the parcels were missing. According to the complainants/opposite parties did not take any step to alert the security staff to make any search. It was left to the claimants staff to search the area, the lorries and the large number of consignments stored in and around the area to trace the missing parcel. The area is a maximum security area and any ingress and agrees and movement of various parcels that come there is controlled by the security staff of the opposite party No. 1. Inspite of vigorous search the parcel could not be traced. Because of the loss of one parcel the Short Shipment Certificate was obtained and the airway bill was accordingly amended and the remaining four parcels were airfreighted. According to the complainants it was due to the neglignece, deficiency in service, misfeasance, malfeasance of opposite party No. 1 that a valuable parcel of the 1 st complainant was lost. The complainants informed the constituent the said loss and the said Hosak Industries realised the value of the lost parcel which was Rs. 45,456/- from the 1st complainant. The complainants filed a complaint to recover Rs. 75,000/- as damages. The 2nd complainant was joined to avoid in technical defence on nonjoinder of parties.

ACCORDING to the 1st opposite party the consignment was under the custody of customs and was brought only on the directions of the Customs Authorities for clearance. The cargo was kept on the ramp as per the direction of opposite party No. 1, but only as per the convenience of the agent. The receipt issued for Rs. 36/- was only for terminal charges for using the I. A. A.I. ramp facilities and equipments like trolley etc. The terminal charge collected by the opposite party has nothing to do with the safe custody of the cargo. As the consignment was custom bonded, it was under the custody of the customs until it was handed over to the carrier. The 1st opposite party is not in any way responsible for the loss as the consignment was never in its custody. As per the gazette notification displayed in the complex the export shipments remain under the charge of the shipper/agent who off load the cargo from the vehicle, shift it to the common user examination area and hand over to Airlines after customs clearance. In the present case as it was a bonded cargo the customs officer escorting the cargo was supposed to ensure handing over of the cargo to the Airlines. It was, therefore, pleaded that the 1st opposite party is not liable for the loss. At no point of item, the cargo was ever in its custody. The second opposite party also denied liability and pleaded that the said opposite party is a Department of Revenue, in the Ministry of Finance (Government of India) and constitute to curb the smuggling activities and maintaining economic stability and viability to the economy of the country. This Department comes into picture only at the time of examination of the baggages when the Clearing Agent produce them on behalf of the exporter. It is not the service oriented department and there is no nexus between the complainants and the 2nd opposite party in whatsoever manner.

AFTER ''hearing the parties the State Commission passed the impugned order. The 1st opposite party in its Appeal No. 112/1993 challenges its liability to pay the damages while the claimants in the Appeal No. 104/94 prays for enhancement of compensation as well as relief against the second opposite party i.e., the Collector of Customs against whom the complaint was dismissed by the State Commission. The case of the 1st opposite party is that the receipt for Rs. 36/- was not in respect of custody of cargo but was only for terminal charges and other charges for using the I.A.A.I. Ramp facilities and equipment like trolley, weighing machine etc. The photocopy of the receipt issued by the 1st opposite party clearly shows that a sum of Rs. 25/-was collected as terminal charges, Rs. 6/- for packing charges and Rs. 5/- as weighment charges, in all Rs. 36/-

THE terminal charges have been defined in the Notification dated 23rd October, 1980 as follows: ''Terminal charges means charges collected by the Authority or Ground Handling Agency for the use of facilities for processing of cargo for the international air cargo complex."

Ground Handling Agency has been defined as follows: "Ground Handling Agency means the person, firm or company handling the cargo in the international air cargo complex as an agent of the International Airport Authority of India."

AS is clear from the version filed by the Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in these appeals, the Ground Handling Agency at the Madras Airport has been discontinued since 1986. Thus the receipt of Rs. 36/- issued by the authority is only for the use of the facilities for the processing of cargo in the airport cargo complex and not for the care of the cargo. Rule 8 reads as follows : "Care of Cargo: The cargo will be stored in the International Air Cargo Complex under the control and supervision of Customs Authorities. While the Authority would be the custodian on the import cargo delivered to it by the carriers, the responsibility for export cargo would be that of the shipper or his agent before customs examination, of the Customs in respect of detained cargo during examination and of the carriers after customs examination."

The validity of the said rule is not disputed Mr. P. Ravi Mohan, Managing Director of the 1st complainant and the Manager of the second complainant had filed an affidavit before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Paragraph 7 of the affidavit reads as follows : "Technical rule that the goods have always to be kept under the custody of the complainant of the customs is not practicable. All Cargo Agents will have to leave the goods on the Ramp of the 1st opposite party to facilitate inspection by the Customs. Even though the officer of the second opposite party has acknowledged the receipt of goods as seen in Exhibit C-l, the goods are always under the custody of the 1st opposite party. For the services the 1st opposite party renders a fee is collected by it."

According to the complainants the rule is not practicable. We are not concerned whether the rule is practicable or not. We are only to see the rule and according to it the export cargo have always to be kept under the custody of the shipper or his agent before customs examination, of the Customs in respect of detained cargo during examination and of the carriers after customs examination. The State Commission has placed much reliance upon Rule 3-A which runs as follows : '' "In regard to export goods, the shipper will obtain a carting order from the concerned carrier who will issue it separately or by stamping the shipping bill. The goods will be admitted in the cargo complex on and after the documents have been scrutinised and found in order and the terminal charges received. The charges may be paid in cash or by Bank transfer or by maintaining a deposit account with the Authority/ Ground Handling Agency. The shipper will get his cargo examined by Customs before handing it over to officials of the Authority/Ground Handling Agency who will on demand transfer it to the concerned carrier after obtaining a valid receipt."

The State Commission has held that a combined reading of these rules would show that the goods brought for export into cargo complex of I. A. A.I. must be held to be in the custody of that authority. According to Rule 3A the shipper gets his cargo examined by Customs before handling it over to officials of the Authority/Ground Hand-ling Agency. According to paragraph 7 of the complaint, copy of which has been filed in First Appeal No. 104/94, the consignment is said to have been lost before the inspection of the appraising staff of the Customs. Therefore, even if Rule 3A is applied to the present case, the authority of Ground Handling Agency cannot be said to be having custody of the cargo before the examinations by Customs.

WE have carefully considered the case and are of the opinion that the authority i.e., the opposite party No. 1 is in no way responsible for the loss of the packed containing shoe uppers. The Customs Authority is also not liable for this loss because under Rule 8 after customs examination the responsibility for the export of cargo is of the carrier and prior to that of the shipper.

IN the light of the above discussions, we allow Appeal No. 112 of 193 filed by the International Airport Authority of India and set aside the impugned order. As held above, the Customs Authorities are also not liable for the loss. Therefore, First Appeal No. 104 of 1993 also fails and is accordingly dismissed. The complainants are directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- each as costs to the International Airport Authority of India and Collector of Customs, Madras.