LEATHER WORLDWIDE vs AIR CANDA

IN spite of our order dated 5.4.2002 evidence by way of affidavit has not been filed. Normally we would have dismissed the complaint for non-prosecution, but considering the question involved we proceed to deliver the following order.

COMPLAINANT who is engaged in the business of manufacture and export of leather goods, received an order supply of certain leather goods from Cellect Accessories, London, UK for US $ 4867.50 equivalent to Indian Rs. 1,65,982.50. COMPLAINANT after completing the order sent the goods as cargo by Air Canda, the opposite party, to be airlifted from Delhi to London. Airway bill dated 4.4.1996 was prepared. As per the instructions given in the airway bill the goods were consigned to National Westminister Bank and the Air Canda was required to deliver the goods to the holder of original documents was to get them released from the Bank after making the payment. However, it appears, contrary to the instructions consignment was delivered by the Air Canada to Cellect Accessories on 14.6.1996 without necessary documents being presented. COMPLAINANT had paid Rs. 8,650/- as freight charges. Complaining deficiency in service complainant has claimed the invoice value of the consignment and the freight charges paid by it as well as interest @ 21.5% per annum amounting to Rs. 43,117/-. That should all have been the claim in the complaint. However, complainant has added loss of three more consignments of leather goods amounting to Rs. 11,14,361/- with which Air Canada was not concerned and on this a sum of Rs. 2,59,487/- is claimed as interest. It is stated that on account of first default Cellect Accessories did not accept these consignments. That may be the affair between the complainant and the Cellect Accessories. Complainant has made another claim of Rs. 10,32,500/- and on this again interest amounting to Rs. 2,21,988/- is claimed which it says is for the loss suffered by it on account of goods manufactured but not sent. Lastly a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been claimed as compensation for harassment and inconvenience so caused. Thus a total claim of Rs. 29,37,435/- has been made.

Assuming the allegations of the complainant to be correct for deficiency in service by the Air Canada but that will only pertain to the first consignment of Airway Bill dated 4.4.1996 which amount in all including interest and freight comes to Rs. 2,17,749 (cost of the consignment = 1,65,982/-, interest = 43,117/- and freight charges = 8,650/-). Rest of the damages claimed are remote and not connected with the loss of the first consignment and are not permissible as deficiency in service.

IN our view, this complaint should be tried by a District Forum. We, therefore, return this complaint to be filed before the appropriate District Forum within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order by the complainant. However, in the alternative we also permit complainant to go to Civil Court and claim the whole amount of Rs. 29,37,435/- in accordance with law. IN that eventuality, complainant may seek exclusion of time spent in these proceedings under Section 14 of the Limitation Act in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Laxmi Engineering Works v. PSG INdustrial INstitute, II (1995) CPJ 1 (SC)=(1995) 3 SCC 583. Ordered accordingly. Ordered accordingly.