INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTS AUTHORITY OF INDIA Vs. SOLIDAIRE INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INTERNATIONAL Airports Authority of India opposite party, has come up in appeal against the order of the State Commission dated 21.1.1994 directing payment of Rs. 7,33,861/ - with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on each item from the date of survey till payment. The facts giving rise to the controversy may be briefly stated as under :

(2.) THE complainant is a manufacturer of television sets and other allied electronic goods for which it imported 12 items of electronic goods from abroad and those were landed in Madras International Airport on various dates. The goods were taken in custody by the International Airports Authority of India, Madras (hereinafter referred to Authority). At the time of clearance of those consignments, after payment of custom duty, it was found that the packages were in tampered conditions. On open examination, in the presence of Custom Authorities and officials of the Authority, the complainant found that the goods were short delivered. The complainant lodged a claim with the Authority in respect of each consignment. The total value of the missing goods was reported to be worth Rs. 9,85,430/ -. The complainant approached the State Commission on the allegations that the opposite party had not performed its service of keeping the consignment safely. There was negligence and deficiency of service. In these premises, claim for the value of missing items with interest thereon, demurrage charges, in all totaling Rs. 19,86,998/ - was laid before the State Commission.

(3.) THE complainant imported the goods for commercial purposes and was not, therefore, a consumer within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act. The complainant failed to implead the Airlines, the Custom Authority and Break Bulk Agent and the complaint was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The 12 claims were independent and the complaint therefore, was bad for mis -joinder of causes of action. The matter involved disputed and complicated facts requiring recording of lot of evidence and going through numerous documents, the proper Forum was thus a Civil Court. The opposite party became the Custodian of the goods when the goods were handed over after customs formality. The Authority had taken up the consignment only on "said to contain" basis and it was not liable for the missing items. It collected only handling charges and applicable demurrage on goods not cleared within /days. It was not responsible for loss or damage because of multiple handling. All the consignments were safely kept in their respective locations under lock and key. The goods were not cleared within 45 days. Final notice was sent to the complainant in respect of the consignment. The responsibility of the opposite party did not exceed the care as expected of a man of ordinary prudence.