NDLI: M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs. Kuwait Airways & Anr.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Carriage by Air Act 1972
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3 Referred Case 4
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Dismissed
Headnote	Issues for consideration:(i) Whether the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commissionhas committed any illegality or perversity in recording the findingthat there was delay in delivery of consignment.(ii) Whether the NCDRC was justified in not allowing the entire claimfor compensation by calculating the total weight of the subjectconsignment in view of Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III of the Carriageby Air Act, 1972 (as amended by the Hague Protocol).Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Appellant’s case that the goods weretendered to respondent no.1 on a specific representation thatthe same will be delivered within seven days – However, therewas delay of more than 40 days – Respondent no.1 contendedthat time was not the essence of contract – The NCDRCdirected respondent no. 1 to pay the appellant/complainantRs. 20 lakhs along with interest – Propriety:Held: Basing on the material available on record, the NCDRChas held that the fax message sent by respondent No.2-agentthrough whom the consignment was booked (24.07.1996) to beshipped by the respondent No.1 goes to show that the goodsshall be delivered at Chicago Memphis on 29.07.1996, 31.07.1996and 31.07.1996 – However, when the consignment did not reachthe destination, appellant/complainant informed the respondentswhereafter, the respondent no. 2 provided a revised schedule,however, the shipments did not reach the destination even as perthe revised schedule, according to which the goods were to reachthe destination on 06.08.1996 – The agent-respondent No.2 hadadmitted that at the time of booking, the complainant was informedabout the tentative date of arrival of goods – Once the agent hasissued a time schedule for delivery of consignment, it cannot besaid that there is no material indicating that there was no agreementfor delivery of the consignment in time – Respondent no.1 hasnever taken the stand in any of the communication arising fromits office that the respondent No.2 is not its agents or that therewas no agreement or promise by its agent that the consignmentwill be delivered in 07 days – The NCDRC has not committed anyillegality or perversity in recording the finding that there was delayin delivery of consignment – Delay in the delivery of consignmenthas inflicted damage to the appellant – The consignee is entitledto seek damages for delay in delivering the consignment. [Paras17, 19, 20, 21]Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III –Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – Delay indelivery of consignment – The NCDRC directed respondentno. 1 to pay the appellant/complainant Rs. 20 lakhs along withinterest – Appellant/complainant submitted once the NCDRCarrives at the conclusion that there is delay in delivery ofconsignment due to negligence of respondent no. 1, fair, justand reasonable compensation must be awarded in accordancewith conditions of the contract and statutory provisions of theCarriage by Air Act, 1972:Held: The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is mainly onaccount of the NCDRC not allowing the entire claim for compensationby calculating the total weight of the subject consignment bycalculating the total weight of the subject consignment at 2507.5Kg. multiplied by US $ 20 per Kg – According to the appellant, inview of Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972(as amended by the Hague Protocol) the amount thus calculatedwould exceed the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs – However, on this pointalso, this Court approves and sustain the order passed by theNCDRC for the reason that in its complaint under Section 21(a)(i)of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant/appellanthas sought damages for Rs. 20 lakhs only as compensation forloss of business and reputation – It is a trite law that a party isnot entitled to seek relief which he has not prayed for. [Para 24]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 996
Petitioner	M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium
Respondent	Kuwait Airways & Anr.
SCR	[2023] 14 S.C.R. 283
Judgement Date	2023-11-09
Case Number	9106

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs. Kuwait Airways & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

M/s Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani Vs. British Airways

Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. M/s Universal Exports & Anr.

M/s. Martin & Harris Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Mehta & Ors.

M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

P. H. Kalyani Vs. M/s. Air France Calcutta

M/s. B.fine Art Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. C.b.i. & Anr.

M/s. Deepak Agro Foods Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

S. Ganapathy and Ors. Vs. Air India and Anr.

State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. M/s. Deep Jyoti Company & Anr.

M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs. Kuwait Airways & Anr.

M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs. Kuwait Airways & Anr.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

M/s Bhagwandas B. Ramchandani Vs. British Airways

Trans Mediterranean Airways Vs. M/s Universal Exports & Anr.

M/s. Martin & Harris Private Limited & Anr. Vs. Rajendra Mehta & Ors.

M/s. Indus Airways Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/s. Magnum Aviation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

P. H. Kalyani Vs. M/s. Air France Calcutta

M/s. B.fine Art Auctioneers Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. C.b.i. & Anr.

M/s. Deepak Agro Foods Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.

S. Ganapathy and Ors. Vs. Air India and Anr.

State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. M/s. Deep Jyoti Company & Anr.

M/s. Rajasthan Art Emporium Vs. Kuwait Airways & Anr.