KRAFTLAND Vs. UNITED AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by M/s Kraftland (India), Appellant herein who was the original complainant before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the State Commission') in C.c. No.C -338/1998 in which United Airlines was the Respondent.

(2.) THE facts of the case according to the Appellant (who is engaged in the business of import and export) are that he had booked a consignment with the Respondent/Airlines for Leeds, UK through their forwarding agent M/s Necko Freight Forwarders Ltd. on 14.11.1997 and a copy of the Invoice No.2059/97 dated 08.11.1997 was handed over to the Respondent in which it was clearly indicated that Barclays Bank, Leeds, U.K. are the consignee. Although the destination was stated as Leeds in the Airways Bill, the destination was wrongly typed by the Respondent/Airlines as being London. Although informed about this discrepancy, Respondent did not take steps to change the destination from London to Leeds and due to the negligence and callousness of Respondent/Airlines, the Appellant's buyer at Leeds refused to take belated delivery of the order and cancelled the same. Appellant thereafter arranged for another buyer for the said consignment at Los Angles and requested the Respondent to forward the consignment to Los Angles for which Appellant was ready to pay the costs. However, vide letter dated 25.11.1997 and 04.12.1997, Respondent/Airlines expressed its inability to transfer the consignment to Los Angles stating that the documents of the concerned consignment have been released to a broker in London. Appellant was shocked to know this because the consignee was Barclays Bank London and therefore, Respondent did not have the authority to release the documents to any other person. To sum -up, in view of the inordinate delay on the part of the Respondent/Airlines, the Appellant was not able to dispose of the consignment either at London or at Los Angles and also lost goodwill of its clients in Leeds, suffering considerable losses on this account which adversely impacted on its business. Since requests made to the Respondent as also to International Airport Transport Authority did not give Appellant any relief, it filed a complaint before the State Commission on grounds of deficiency in service and requested that the Respondent be directed to pay the Appellant, Rs.2 lakhs towards cost of goods, Rs.5 lakhs towards loss of goodwill and business, Rs.50,000/ - towards mental agony and harassment along with refund of freight charges Rs.17,100/ -, thus totalling to Rs.7,67,100/ - with interest @ 24% per annum.

(3.) RESPONDENT denied the above contentions and stated that it was the Appellant who had mentioned the destination initially as London and also that the documents of the said consignment should be given to the broker for customs clearance. The consignment was dispatched on the same date i.e. on 11.11.1997. It was only through a letter dated 18.11.1997 that a request was received through Appellant's agent to change the destination to Leeds. While this matter was being processed which is a time consuming matter, Appellant vide letter dated 22.11.1997 again requested for change in the destination for the consignment from London to Los Angeles which was also subsequently done. Regarding the alleged delay in sending the goods to Los Angles, Appellant had never stated at any point of time to the Respondent that the consignment was required to reach Los Angeles by 8.12.1997 and therefore Respondent cannot be held guilty of deficiency in service on any of these counts.