J.N. SEHGAL vs INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA

THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of the District Forum dated 23-8-91 by which the complaint has been dismissed.

BRIEFLY the facts are that the complainant was working as Attache in the Embassy of India at Aden. He booked his baggage with M/s. Alymeda Airlines (hereinafter referred to as ''the AA'') at Aden for carriage to Delhi. The baggage inter-alia contained two carpets rolled in one bundle. The baggage was brought by the AA to Bombay where that was entrusted to Indian Airlines for carriage to Delhi, on 30-3-90. At Delhi the baggage was stored by the Indian Airlines in the godown of International Airport Authority of India (IAAI), respondent No.l. The complainant took delivery of the same on 6-4-90. When he opened the package containing carpets, it is alleged, he found that the carpets had been damaged by some chemical and turned into small pieces on account of chemical reaction. He reported the matter to the respondents and requested them to pay him the price of the carpets but they refused to do so. Consequently he filed the complaint for recovery of price of the carpets and damages.

The complaint has been contested by both the respondents. Respondent No. 1 alleged that the packages were received between 30th March and 1st April 90 from M/s. Indian Airlines flight No. IC-185 an unaccompanied baggage. They were tendered for custom examination on 9-4-90, which was conducted by the customs department in the presence of the complainant. After clearance from the customs they were delivered to the complainant on 10-4-90. The complainant did not give any adverse remarks as to the quantity and condition of the carpets and therefore, they were not liable to pay any damages.

RESPONDENT No. 2, namely Indian Airlines (I.A.), controverted the allegations of the complainant and pleaded that he received the package without making any adverse remarks and that showed that the goods when delivered to him were in proper condition. The learned District Forum came to the conclusion that no responsibility could be fixed on any of the respondent, as the complainant did not give any adverse remarks at the time of taking the delivery of the package. Consequently it dismissed the complaint. The complainant has come up in appeal against the said order to the Commission.

THE only question that arises for determination is, whether the carpets were destroyed by some chemical on account of negligence on the part of the respondents. THEre is no dispute regarding the dates on which the carpets were despatched and received at Delhi. It is further not disputed that they were taken delivery by the appellant on 10-4-90 and he did not make any adverse remarks regarding the condition of the baggage at that time. THE contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant is, that the carpets had been destroyed on account of chemical reaction. She further urges that in the consignment some chemicals were carried by the Indian Airlines and the carpets were destroyed on account of leakage of the chemicals. We have given our consideration to the argument. It is true that some chemical was being carried in the same consignment. THE respondent, however, produced a letter from Sh. Ashok Kapoor, Executive Director of M/s. Seagull Labs (I) Pvt. Ltd. stating that they imported 15 kgs. Famotidine from Lisac SA Span, which was used in medicine preparation, and it was solid and harmless material. He has also given the names of the medicines which were prepared with that chemical. From the said letter it is clear that it was a solid and harmless substance. If it had leaked from the container, it would have been found on the packing material, and damaged that same. However, there is no complaint that the packing material had been damaged. It is further relevant to mention, that if full quantity of the chemical had not been received by the company they would have lodged a claim with the respondents. But that was not done. Moreover, respondent No. 2 in their reply stated that the consignment of the chemical was delivered to M/s. Seagull Labs (I) Pvt. Ltd. intact and without any loss of quantity. It is thus clear that the carpet was not damaged from that chemical. The Commission at the request of the complainant sent the sample of the carpet to the Indian Institute of Technology/Delhi for chemical analysis. Mr. S.M. Ishtiaque Asstt. Professor vide letter dated 26.11.93 informed the Commission that the sample was carefully examined and it was noticed that in the base cloth of the carpet, cotton and jute yarn had been used and the piles were of synthetic fibres. From the sample it was visualised that it was of carpet but in distroyed condition. The base of the carpet was fully distorted and piles had come out. He further observed that therefore, the sample was no more in the shape of carpet and thus no mechanical test could be conducted. From the report it is evident that it was not possible for the Institute to conduct mechanical test. The matter may be examined from another angle as well. The two carpets were of big size and they had been rolled and covered by covering material. If the powder had penetrated covering material and had reached the carpet, covering material and the upper few rolls of the carpets would have been damaged and the remaining portion thereof would have remained safe. However, the version of the appellant is that both the carpets were totally destroyed. It is, therefore, unbelievable that the carpets were destroyed by some chemical as alleged by the appellant.

IT is further relevant to mention that the complainant made the complaint regarding the carpets on 17.4.90 to the Manager Indian Airlines. He took delivery of the package on 10.4.90. At the time of delivery of the package no adverse remarks were given by him regarding its condition. Thus the complaint has been made by him after a lapse of seven days. That further makes the version of the complainant suspicious. IT is not disputed that the carpets were made of synthetic material and purchased outside the country. IT cannot be ruled out that the dealer from whom those had been purchased, packed old and worn out carpets and this fact was discovered, when the package was opened.

AFTER taking into consideration all the aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the respondents cannot be held liable for the payment of the damages to the appellant on the ground that the carpets were found damaged when they were opened. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any merit in the appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.