GEETA RANI vs Air Freight Ltd

THE facts of the case are as follows: - A sum of Rs. 937/ - (Rupees nine hundred and thirty -seven) was paid to the opposite party M/s. Airfreight Ltd., Madras to carry a parcel containing culture of Mycobacterium tuberculosis isolated from the sputum of the patient Smt. Geeta Rani, to Dr. P.R.J. Gangadharam, Director Mycobacteriology for Immunology and respiratory medicine, Denver, U.S.A., on 23rd July, 1990.

THE above mentioned parcel despatched vide AWB No. 07492111401 MAA/DEN from Madras did not reach the intended destination in time to test the sensitivity of the sputum to a drug not available in India. The parcel was marked as containing pathogenic material, not to be opened. The urgency of the parcel reaching Denver, .its destination, was mentioned whilst handing over the same to M/s. Airfreight Ltd. and the concerned staff of the latter assured that it would reach in four days time. Since the husband of Smt. Geeta Rani, Shri Haribabu had been told by Dr. K. Jagannath, in Madras, that it would take one month for Dr. Gangadharam in Denver, to carry out the tests and arrive at a conclusion, Shri Haribabu did not enquire about it till 6th September, 1990. On contacting Denver over telephone on 6th September, 1990, he was shocked to hear that the parcel had not reached the said destination. On 7th September, 1990 after getting another confirmation from Denver that the parcel had till then not reached, Shri Haribabu sent a letter to M/s. Airfreight Ltd., Madras - informing them of the non -delivery of the parcel. He also went and met the concerned official Shri E. Muthukumar Sales Manager of Airfreight Ltd., Madras on 22nd September, 1990, and enquired about the whereabouts of the parcel, but he did not get any correct information. Shri Haribabu again contacted Dr. Gangadharam on 23rd September, 1990 over telephone, and he was informed that the cultured sputum would not be of any use now, and he was asked to send fresh sample of cultured sputum, which would take another 3 months for the culture to develop and in the meantime the condition of the patient was deteriorating fast

BEING aggrieved with the above happenings and having already spent a lot of money over the whole process, the petitioner has brought a claim of damages against M/s. Airfreight Ltd. as below: - The details of expenditure are given below: (i) Medical treatment Rs. 2,00,000/ - (ii) Nursing Home Charges & attendant charges Rs. 50,000/ - (iii) Travelling expenditure for making trips from Guntur to Madras and stay at Madras Rs. 25,000/ - (iv) Loss of leave to Shri Haribabu as he was with the patient throughout during this period Rs. 2,000/ - (v) Further expenditure in again going through the tests for culturing the sputum etc. Rs. 5,000/ - (vi) Telephone charges for making calls to Denver Rs. 3,000/ - (vii) Compensation for under - going mental agony due to the negligence of M/s. Air Freight Ltd. Madras Rs. 3,00,000/ - (viii) Compensation for further tension due to non -receipt of sputum for testing at Denver Rs. 2,00,000/ - (ix) Compensation for the separation from children and husband due to the illness which could not be cured due to non -receipt of reports Rs. 2,00,000/ - (x) Expenditure for trip to Denver a stay at Denver and treatment Rs. 7,00,000/ - Total Rs. 18,85,000/ -

THE opposite party was represented by their Counsel Shri Krishnamoorthy. In their written statement and during the hearings the opposite party denied the allegations made by the petitioner. The first objection raised was that Smt. Geeta Rani was not the Consumer of their service as the consignors name was given as Dr. K. Jagannath. We do not consider this as a valid ground for objection, as Dr. K. Jagannath was sending the parcel on behalf of the patient Smt. Geeta Rani, whose sputum was being sent to Dr. Gangadharam, for certain tests, the result of which would have shown if she could respond to the drug available in the U.S.A. and which was not available here. The Opposite party states that they had difficulty in sending the above mentioned parcel, because of the nature of the consignment and eventually ''K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines'' consented to carry the same. They also stressed that the consignor was told that the normal time taken for the consignment to reach the destination overseas is 7 to 8 days, and not four days as stated by the petitioner. The consignment had reached Chicago on 27.7.1990 and had been handed over to the trucking company for onward despatch to Denver. According to the opposite party they had sent a letter to Shri Haribabu dated 1.10.1990 stating that the consignment was taken delivery by the consignee on 26.9.1990.

THEY further claimed that the consignment had reached Denver on 28.7.1990 and the consignee was informed of the same on 1.1990. The consignee did not respond to the Cargo Arrival Notice and despite reminders dated 6.8.1990, and personal contact on 23.8.1990 there was still no response from the consignee. Thus the consignment was not delivered till 28.9.1990.

DURING the course of the hearings the Counsel for the opposite party could not give plausible reasons as for the delay caused in delivering the said consignment, from the time it reached Denver i.e. 28.7.1990 and when it was actually delivered on 28.9.1990. And taking into consideration the fact that when the consignment finally did reach the consignee Dr. Gangadharam, in Denver the contents of the parcel viz. the sputum of Smt. Geeta Rani, was of no use for any tests to be conducted on it. We hold that there was deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party M/s. Airfreight Ltd. Though we are not satisfied with the evidence produced as to the actual expenditure incurred by the petitioner in the matter of sending the sputum to Denver and subsequent telephone calls made to that place etc., we are of the opinion that the petitioner must have incurred considerable amount on that account and so we direct the Opposite Party to pay Rs. 10,000/ - as compensation.

NEVERTHELESS , we are constrained to mention here that the claim of damages put forward by the petitioner, to the tune of Rs. 16,85,000/ - has no co -relation at all to the lapse on the part of the opposite party, and the petitioner would have been well advised to present this petition before the concerned District Forum in the first instance. With these observations we close the original petition. There will be no order as to costs. Appeal allowed. -