International Airport Authority of India vs AURELEC DATA PROCESSING SYSTEMS

THE opposite party, International Airport Authority of India against which an award has been passed by the District Forum, is the appellant. THE complainant M/s. Aurelec Data Processing Systems imported from Singapore 5 Nos. of hard disk drives (452 MB) by Air India Flight No. 405 which landed at the Madras Airport on 15.12.1993. THE consignment consisted of 5 cartons and weighed 5 kgs. [each carton weighing 1 kg.] and it was of the value of Rs. 65,821/-. THE Customs authorities assessed the goods after physical verification in the presence of the complainant''s personnel on 28.12.1993 and the total duty was fixed at Rs. 70,428/- and the amount was paid on 30.12.1993. According to the complainant, at that time, to the shock of the complainant''s officer who paid the said amount, it was found that the 5 cartons which ought to have weighed 1 kg. each, weighed only 350 gms. each. THErefore, the complainant''s officer refused to take delivery of the goods. THE complainant issued notices to the Customs authorities and the opposite party regarding this. He received a reply from the Customs authorities stating that the goods were in the custody of the opposite party and therefore they had nothing to do with it. But no communication was received from the opposite party. THE complainant issued a Lawyer''s notice to the opposite party stating that they were in custody of the goods and hence they were responsible for the loss of weight of the goods and they have to make good the loss which amounts to Rs. 1,36,249/-. But the opposite party replied stating that after the physical examination by the Customs authorities and repacking, the cartons were kept in the godown of the opposite party which was meant for examined cargo which was locked after office hours and there could not be any pilferage since the packages were found in the same intact condition as they were repacked after examination. According to the complainant, the pilferage would not have taken place if the opposite party had taken necessary care of the goods entrusted to them while it was in their custody. It was only because of the carelessness of the opposite party the pilferage had taken place. Thus alleging, the complaint has been filed.

THE opposite party contended inter alia that the goods were sent for Customs examination on 22.12.1993. At the instance of the complainant''s representative the goods were brought to the Customs examination area and there the goods were handed over to the complainant''s representative in intact condition under clear signature. If any pilferage had happened at this point of time, the opposite party would not be liable. THE complainant gave an undertaking that he would repack and return the packages in intact condition after Customs authorities'' examination. THE packages were examined by the Customs authorities and it was repacked with the automatic heat sealing repacking machine and then the packages were stored in a separate godown meant for the examined cargo only. When the representative of the complainant approached the opposite party for delivery of the consignment on 30.12.1993, the same was forwarded for delivery in repacked condition and was handed over to the complainant''s representative. But the complainant''s representative refused to take delivery even though there was no damage to the packages. On the complainant''s representation, the Surveyor examined and he found that all the packages weighed approximately 350 gms. each. It is further contended that since the packing materials were removed in the process of customs examination, there will be differences in weight. It is also contended that the non-impleading of the Customs is fatal to the complainant''s case. THErefore, the complaint is liable to be dismissed. The District Forum, on consideration of the pleadings and the evidence, accepted the case of the complainant that it was because of the carelessness or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party pilferage had occurred. It then held that the complainant would be entitled to the value of the goods viz., Rs. 65,821/-; customs duty paid viz. Rs. 70,428/-; interest on the total sum of Rs. 1,36,249/- @ 12% p.a. from 30.12.1993 till payment; a sum of Rs. 15,000/- for mental agony and costs of Rs. 2,000/-.

Now in the appeal, after hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/ opposite party and on going through the records, we find no reason whatsoever to interfere with the order of the District Forum. It is not in dispute that since the time the cargo was brought to the Meenambakkam Airport it was in the custody of the opposite party. The cargo arrived at the Airport on 15.12.1993. It was sent for Customs examination on 28.12.1993. The Customs have assessed the goods on physical verification and levied a duty of Rs. 70,428/-. After the Customs examination, the consignment was repacked and it was kept in the godown meant for examined cargo. It is nobody''s case that till then any part of the consignment had been pilfered. The opposite party would, merely state that during the Customs examination, the goods might have been stolen. However it may be, it must not be forgotten that during that time also the opposite party was in the custody of the goods. If any pilferage had occurred even at that time, the opposite party must be responsible. But the pilferage has been found out only on 30.12.1993 i.e., when the goods were offered to the complainant''s representative. Here it may be remembered that it is not in dispute that there was shortage of weight of goods after the Customs examination. It is even according to the opposite party that the consignment was kept in the godown of the opposite party till 30.12.1993 when the complainant''s representative came for taking delivery of the goods. From these facts, it appears quite apparent that the theft would have occurred only during the time when the goods were in the custody of the opposite party between 28.12.1993 after the Customs examination and 30.12.1993 when the goods were offered to the complainant''s representative. It is stated that when the goods were offered, the packages were intact as they were repacked after Customs examination. But it cannot be said that the packages, after the Customs examination, were not unpacked and repacked, and that could not have been done by the opposite party themselves or with the assistance of anybody else. Thus considering, we are of the view that correctly the District Forum has held that for the pilferage the opposite party only was liable.

IN this view of the matter, we confirm the order of the District Forum and dismiss the appeal. Appeal dismissed with costs.