M/S. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUM versus KUWAIT AIRWAYS & ANR.

Citation: [2023] 14 S.C.R. 283 · Decided: 09-11-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 14 S.C.R. 283 : 2023 INSC 996
283
CASE DETAILS
M/S. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUM 
v. 
KUWAIT AIRWAYS & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 9106 of 2012)
NOVEMBER 09, 2023
[A.S. BOPANNA AND PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, JJ.] 
HEADNOTES
Issues for consideration: (i) Whether the National Consumer 
Disputes Redressal Commission has committed any illegality or perversity 
in recording the fi nding that there was delay in delivery of consignment. 
(ii) Whether the NCDRC was justifi ed in not allowing the entire claim 
for compensation by calculating the total weight of the subject consignment 
in view of Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (as 
amended by the Hague Protocol).
Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Appellant’s case that the goods were 
tendered to respondent no.1 on a specifi c representation that the same 
will be delivered within seven days – However, there was delay of more 
than 40 days – Respondent no.1 contended that time was not the essence 
of contract – The NCDRC directed respondent no. 1 to pay the appellant/
complainant Rs. 20 lakhs along with interest – Propriety:
Held: Basing on the material available on record, the NCDRC has 
held that the fax message sent by respondent No.2-agent through whom 
the consignment was booked (24.07.1996) to be shipped by the respondent 
No.1 goes to show that the goods shall be delivered at Chicago Memphis on 
29.07.1996, 31.07.1996 and 31.07.1996 – However, when the consignment 
did not reach the destination, appellant/complainant informed the respondents 
whereafter, the respondent no. 2 provided a revised schedule, however, the 
shipments did not reach the destination even as per the revised schedule, 
according to which the goods were to reach the destination on 06.08.1996 
284 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 14 S.C.R.
– The agent-respondent No.2 had admitted that at the time of booking, the 
complainant was informed about the tentative date of arrival of goods – Once 
the agent has issued a time schedule for delivery of consignment, it cannot 
be said that there is no material indicating that there was no agreement for 
delivery of the consignment in time – Respondent no.1 has never taken the 
stand in any of the communication arising from its offi  ce that the respondent 
No.2 is not its agents or that there was no agreement or promise by its agent 
that the consignment will be delivered in 07 days – The NCDRC has not 
committed any illegality or perversity in recording the fi nding that there was 
delay in delivery of consignment – Delay in the delivery of consignment 
has infl icted damage to the appellant – The consignee is entitled to seek 
damages for delay in delivering the consignment. [Paras 17, 19, 20, 21]
Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III – Consumer 
Protection Act, 1986 – Section 21(a)(i) – Delay in delivery of consignment 
– The NCDRC directed respondent no. 1 to pay the appellant/
complainant Rs. 20 lakhs along with interest – Appellant/complainant 
submitted once the NCDRC arrives at the conclusion that there is delay 
in delivery of consignment due to negligence of respondent no. 1, fair, 
just and reasonable compensation must be awarded in accordance with 
conditions of the contract and statutory provisions of the Carriage by 
Air Act, 1972:
Held: The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is mainly on 
account of the NCDRC not allowing the entire claim for compensation by 
calculating the total weight of the subject consignment by calculating the 
total weight of the subject consignment at 2507.5 Kg. multiplied by US $ 20 
per Kg – According to the appellant, in view of Rule 22 (2) of Schedule-III 
of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (as amended by the Hague Protocol) the 
amount thus calculated would exceed the sum of Rs. 20 lakhs – However, 
on this point also, this Court approves and sustain the order passed by the 
NCDRC for the reason that in its complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant/appellant has sought 
damages for Rs. 20 lakhs only as compensation for loss of business and 
reputation – It is a trite law that a party is not entitled to seek relief which 
he has not prayed for. [Para 24]
285
M/S. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUM v. KUWAIT AIRWAYS 
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
Dilawari Exporters v. Alitalia Cargo & Ors. (2010) 5 SCC 754: [2010] 
4 SCR 927 – relied on.
Merrrs. Trojan & Co. Vs. RM.N.N. Nagappa Chettiar AIR 1953 SC 
235: [1953] SCR 789; Krishna Priya Ganguly etc. e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.