w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



M/s. Federal Express Corporation, Mumbai v/s M/s. Chirag International, Through Partner Shri Gautamdas Maheshwari & Others

    Revision Petition No. 2757 of 2016 in Appeal No. 922 of 2014

    Decided On, 18 July 2018

    At, National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission NCDRC

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
    By, PRESIDING MEMBER

    For the Petitioner: P.V. Dinesh, K. Bineesh, Advocates. For the Respondents: R1, Sabyasachi Mishra, Soumyadeep Bisoi, R2, Nemo, R3 & R4, Manish Kohli, Advocates.



Judgment Text

Oral

1. Respondent no.1 M/s Chirag International booked a consignment of goods in 62 boxes to be shipped to M/s R. Bhavsar in France and sent the same to respondent no.3 & 4 Sunrise Freight Forwards Pvt. Ltd. through M/s Silver Wing Roadways. A consignment note showing M/s Chirag International as consigner and Sunrise Freight Forwards Pvt. Ltd. as the consignee was issued by M/s Silver Wings R

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

oadways while carrying the goods from Jaipur to Delhi. Thereafter, Sunrise Freight Forwards Pvt. Ltd. issued an airway bill giving the name of M/s Chirag International as consigner and the name of M/s R. Bhavsar of France as the consignee. It appears that the goods were entrusted by Sunrise Freight Forwards Pvt. Ltd. to the petitioner M/s Federal Express Corporation which issued an airway bill giving the name of Sunrise Freight Forwards Pvt. Ltd. as the shipper and the name of M/s R. Bhavsar of France as the consignee. The case of the complainant M/s Chirag International is that the goods were to be delivered in France by 24.08.2006. However, only 12 boxes arrived in France on that date. The delivery of those 12 boxes was not accepted by the consignee on the ground that he wanted the delivery of the entire consignment. The remaining boxes arrived on 02.09.2006 but the delivery having not been accepted, the goods were brought back by the petitioner to Delhi. Later, the goods were re-shipped to France by the petitioner and the delivery was taken there. A Consumer Complaint was filed by M/s Chirag International before the concerned District Forum impleading the petitioner and Sunrise Freight Forwards Pvt. Ltd. as the OPs. The complaint was resisted by the petitioner on several grounds including that there was no privity of contract between it and the complainant and that there was no commitment by it to deliver the goods to France by 24.08.2006.

2. It appears that Concord Air Handling Services Pvt. Ltd. was also impleaded as a party in the Consumer Complaint at a later date.

3. The District Forum, vide its order dated 15.07.2014, allowed the Consumer Complaint against all the OPs in the Consumer Complaint and directed them to pay a sum of Rs.4,55,590/- to the complainant alongwith interest and depreciation quantified at Rs.1,00,000/-. Another sum of Rs.2,00,000/- was awarded to the complainant as compensation. Being aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the concerned State Commission. The said appeal having been dismissed, the petitioner is before this Commission.

4. It transpired during the course of hearing that Sunrise Freight Forwards Pvt. Ltd. had also preferred an appeal against the order of the District Forum but the said appeal was dismissed as barred by limitation and the order dismissing the appeal was not challenged further by Sunrise Freight Forwards Pvt. Ltd.

5. During the course of arguments, I specifically asked the learned counsel for the complainant to show to me any document from the petitioner committing to deliver the goods in France on or before 24.08.2006, the said averment having been expressly denied by the petitioner in its written version filed before the District Forum. No such document however could be shown by the learned counsel or the complainant. In the absence of an agreement or a commitment from the petitioner to deliver the goods in France on or before 24.08.2006, it cannot be said to be deficient in rendering services to the complainant on account of the part of the goods having arrived late in France. This is more so in the light of the case of the petitioner is that it was on account of a technical defect in the aircraft that the goods could not reach from Dubai to France and led to delay of 8 days. Since the petitioner has to succeed on this ground alone, I need not consider the other grounds taken by it.

6. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order, to the extent it pertains to the petitioner M/s Federal Express Corporation cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.
O R