UMA EXPORTS vs Singapore Airlines Ltd

-THIS is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

THE complainant, who is an Exporter of Textile goods, received an order from M/s. D & S Import-Export Limited, U.S.A. for total value of Rs. 24,200/- U.S. dollars, equivalent to Rs. 7,57,944/-. THE complainant delivered a consignment of 13 packages being a portion of the total value of the order through the 2nd Opposite Party forwarding Agent to the 1st Opposite Party Singapore Airlines on 3.5.93 for transport to U.S.A. Out of the 13 packages, only 3 packages were received by the Consignee at Los Angles. THE complainant wrote to the 1st Opposite Party on 1.6.93 and the 1st Opposite party admitted the loss by its letters dated 2.6.93 and 8.6.93. THE 2nd Opposite Party has also been negligent in not seeing to it that the consignment reached intact. Hence this complaint claiming compensation in the sum of Rs. 13,88,248/- including value of the total order placed by the Foreign Buyer. The complaint is resisted by the 1st Opposite Party. It is pointed out that the claim was made on this Opposite Party by the Consignee M/s. D& S Import-Export Ltd., U.S.A. for Rs. 15,143.02 U.S. dollars in respect of the missing packages and this Opposite Party settled the claim at U.S. dollars 10,420 and paid the amount by means of a cheque. M/s. D & S Import-Export Limited has also executed a Release and Indemnity. It is also pointed out that the complainant by its letter dated 14.7.93 has admitted the realization of the value of this Consignment. The Complainant is not, therefore, entitled to make any claim in respect of the missing packages. It is further contended that the carrier is not liable for any consequent loss arising from carriage, whether or not the carrier had knowledge of such damages might be incurred.

The 2nd Opposite Party denied any liability. Its duty is to forward the consignment to the Airlines and prepare the Airway Bill, as per the instructions of the Consignor. Accordingly, the 2nd Opposite Party has delivered the consignment to the 1st Opposite Party. The 2nd Opposite Party is not liable for the loss in the carriage of the consignment.

EXHIBITS Al to A22 and Bl to B8 are marked by consent. Mr. S. Prabakaran has filed a proof affidavit on behalf of the Complainant. Mr. Louis Cheng Fun Jeng has filed a proof affidavit on behalf of the 1st Opposite Party. The points that arise for consideration are (1) Whether there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the 1st Opposite Party? (2) Whether the claim made by the Complainant is maintainable? (3) Whether there has been any deficiency of service on the part of the 2nd Opposite Party? (4) To what relief, if any, is the Complainant entitled?

POINT No. 1 : The Complainant has delivered to the 1st Opposite Party through the 2nd Opposite Party forwarding Agent a consignment of textile goods of 13 packages to be transported from Madras to Los Angles. The Consignee is M/s. D & S Import-Export Limited, U.S.A. The consignment has reached Los Angles. But, out of the 13 packages only 3 were available. The remaining 10 packages were missing and this is admitted by the 1st Opposite Party in its letter under Exs. All and A12, dated 2.6.93 and 8.6.93. There is, therefore, no doubt that there has been deficiency of service on the part of the 1st Opposite Party in the carriage of this consignment from Madras to Los Angles. Point No. 2 : Though there has been deficiency of service on the part of the Opposite Party No. 1 in the transportation of this consignment, the question arises whether the Complaint is entitled to maintain this claim for the damages, for the loss of the missing packets. Ex. B6 is the communication from the Complainant to the 1st Opposite Party, dated 14.7.93, where it has been clearly admitted that the buyer has paid fully for the missing bales. It is clear that the buyer has paid for the entire consignment and the property in the consignment has passed to the buyer viz. M/s. D & S Import-Export Ltd., U.S.A. According to the 1st Opposite Party the buyer, the Consignee made a claim on the Opposite Party in the sum of Rs. 15,143.02 U.S. dollars as compensation for the missing packages and the claim was settled with the buyer at U.S. dollars 10,420 and the amount has been paid by means of a cheque. Ex. B3 is the claim made by M/s. D & S Import-Export Limited, U.S.A. on the 1st Opposite Party for a total claim of Rs. 15,143.02 U.S. dollars. Ex B5 is the Release and Indemnity Bond executed by M/s. D&S Import-Export Ltd. accepting from the 1st Opposite Party the sum of Rs. 10,420/- U.S. dollars in full, final and complete settlements of all the claims of whatever nature and howsoever arising against the Singapore Airlines. Ex. B4 a communication under which the cheque for U.S. dollars 10,420/- has been issued by the 1st Opposite Party to the consignee M/s. D&S Import-Export Limited, U.S.A. It is, therefore, obvious that the consignee who has become the owner of the consignment has settled the claim with the carrier and the complainant is not, therefore, entitled to claim any damages against the carrier for the missing packages. It is significant to note that the complainant has deliberately suppressed this fact of settlements by the 1st Opposite Party with the consignee and come forward with false claim for compensation. In as much as the claim has been settled between the consignee and the carrier, this complaint filed by the complainant is not maintainable. It is urged by the Learned Counsel for the Complainant that on account of the missing of 10 packages, the Foreign Buyer has cancelled the entire order and the 1st Opposite Party is, therefore, liable therefore. Accordingly he has claimed the value of the total order viz. Rs. 24,200/- U.S. dollars, equivalent to Rs. 7,57,944/-, Rs. 72,000/- for quota expenses, Rs. 2,00,000/- for the value of loss of business, Rs. 1,50,000/- for the value of yarn bought and unused and Rs. 2,00,000/- for mental pain and agony, Rs. 3,304/- for telephone and fax expenses and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- for subsequent expenses. All the claims are totally untenable. In the first place, there is absolutely no evidence to substantiate all these claims. Secondly, it is well settled that the Complainant is entitled to only to the damages actually suffered and not for any consequential loss. This is, further, made clear in Article 14 paragraph 11 of Ex. B2 General Conditions of Carriage for the Cargo issued by the 1st Opposite Party Singapore Airlines. The claim made by the Complainant is not only inflated but also bereft of any merit. The Complainant is not entitled to claim any relief against the 1st Opposite Party.

POINTNO. 3 : The second Opposite Party is a forwarding agent through whom the Complainant delivered the consignment to the 1st Opposite Party. The duty of the forwarding Agency is to deliver the consignment to the carrier and prepare the Airway Bill. It is not his duty to see that the carrier transported the consignment safely. Hence the 2nd Opposite Party can not be accused of any deficiency of service for the loss of 10 packages in the carriage by Air by the 1st Opposite Party. The claim against the 2nd Opposite Party must also fails.

POINT No. 4 : In view of the findings on points 2 & 3, the complaint must fails. In the result, the complaint fails and is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- to the 1st Opposite Party. Complaint dismissed.