BALA ENTERPRISES vs CHIEF POST MASTER GENERALDELHI CIRCLE

BY this order we are deciding application of the complainant seeking to implead M/s. Emirate Airlines as fourth opposite party. Other three opposite parties are the Chief Post Master General (Delhi Circle), Director of Foreign Post, Foreign Post Office, and Post Master/Manager, Foreign Post Office, though all these will constitute one opposite party. The complaint was filed on 1.5.1996 alleging deficiency in service on the part of Foreign Post Office and claiming Rs. 54,92,811.35 as compensation for loss of the consignment entrusted to the Foreign Post Office. A similar amount is also claimed towards loss of business and Rs. 10.00 lakhs toward mental torture and harassment.

COMPLAINANT alleges that he sent four consignments of cut and polished diamonds to M/s. Nofi Jewellers, Dubai under different invoices by Speed Post bearing receipt No. 101, 102, 103 and 104 respectively through the opposite party-Foreign Post Office and valuing US $ 94190.00, 71060.00, 42253.00 and 23000.00 respectively. However, all these consignments did not reach Nofi Jewellers. Thus the complaint for claiming value of the missing diamonds, compensation for loss of business, for mental torture and harassment. Opposite party-Foreign Post Office submitted its written version. They alleged that all the diamonds covered under four invoices after completion of necessary formalities were handed over to Emirate Airlines and were to be airlifted by its flight No. EK-703 dated 26.11.1995. It was alleged that the report was received from Dubai Administration which in effect said that all was not well with the consignments when they arrived at Dubai Airport and that the matter was being taken up with the airlines and that it was under still process. Case of the Foreign Post Office thus was that mischief took pace only after the bag containing consignments had been handed over to Emirate Airlines staff.

This led the complainant to present application seeking to implead Emirate Airlines as a co-opposite party. Complainant says that on account of this stand of the Foreign Post Office it was imperative that in the interest of justice Emirate Airlines be impleaded as opposite party in the instant case as a necessary party. It is difficult to understand how on the averment of the Foreign Post Office complainant can claim any cause of against Emirate Airlines. There was no privity of contract between the complainant and the Emirate Airlines. It is also not the case of the Foreign Post Office that Emirate Airlines be added as a co-opposite party. Complainant did not pay any charges to the Emirate Airlines to carry the goods to Dubai. Moreover, any claim for compensation against the Emirate Airlines, an International Carrier would be governed by the provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972. There is nothing in the complaint from which it could be ascertained as to how Emirate Airlines could be added as an opposite party and how the claim made against the Foreign Post Office could be foisted upon the Emirate Airlines against the provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Complainant wants to add Emirate Airlines as an opposite party on the statement of Foreign Post Office which states that "from the circumstances it is obvious that the mischief took place only after the bag has been handed over up with the Airlines and some documents called for by them have since been supplied. The case is still under process". It is difficult to see as to how merely on this averment made in this application, Emirate Airlines becomes a necessary party as contended by the complainant. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this application and would dismiss the same. Let the matter be proceeded with as regards claim made against the Foreign Post Office. To be listed on 29.4.2002 for directions and further proceedings. Application dismissed.