The supreme court rejects the appeal by stating that relief cannot be seeked if the party did not prayed for entitled
Title – M/S Rajasthan Art Emporium vs Kuwait Airways & Anr.
Decided on-9/11/2023
+Civil appeal no. 9106/2012
CORAM- JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA
INTRODUCTION
These two appeals are cross appeal preferred against the order passed by the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission was disposed of whereby the complaint filed by the appellant/ Complainant directing Respondent no.1 to pay the compensation US$ 500750 or Rs 20 Lakhs in less along with 9% per annum compensation with effect from 31/07/1996 till it’s realization.
FACTS
As the case of appellant/Complainant is that as it is a exporter of all kinds of handicrafts goods to several countries and the appellant had received an order from M/S Williams Sonoma Inc. USA for supply of handicraft goods.Accordingly, the appellant had to send three shipments of 1538 packages to the consignee on an urgent basis, ason 22/07/ 1996 ,the goods were tendered to respondent 1 through respondent no.2 after getting an assurance that the shipments will reach Destination at Memphis within 7 days and to be handed over to the appellant/Complainant and was supposed to reach at Memphis by 31/07/1996.as the consignment did not reach the destination and revised delivery schedule was given 05/08/1996 and still did not reach at the revised date and on receiving the goods the consignee expressed bits anguish by sending letter dated 23/08/1996 And informed the complainant that the goods are not received in toto and the respondent no. 1 was unable to tell where the remaining cartons are it is also on record that 69 cartoons were lying with Lufthansa for which respondent no. 1 by its letter dated 30/08/1996 addressed to Respondent no.2 accepted the short delivery and on 7/09/1996 the appellant made apdest claim against the respondents for refund of full freight and on 04/08/1997 the appellant served the legal notice for which there is no response. ultimately the appellant/complainant lodge a complaint before the NCDRC with the prayer that respondent no.1 be directed to refund a sum of Rs 24,48,345 being fair charges for the consignments pay a sum of Rs 20 lakhs as compensation for loss of business and reputation pay interest@ 18% as well as cost of litigation, which was disposed of.
THE COURT ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The honorable court after hearing both the learned council the court observed that as the NCDRC passed a final order in 21/05/2003 which was challenged the complainant preferred civil appeal bearing C.A No. 8211 /2003 which was allowed by this court on 15/03/2011 where the court observed that the issue concerning delay in delivery of good has been decided by NCDRC without appreciating the material and evidence available on record resulting the matter was remitted back to NCDRC for fresh consideration of the complainant case vis-a-vis delay in delivering the consignment.after the remand the present impugned order has been passed holding that there was delay in delivering the consignment on time for which the complainant is entitled to compensation of 25037.5 kg. Multiplied by US$ 500750 which exceed the sum of Rs 20 lakhs claimed by the complainant therefore the complainant wa only entitled to have compensation of rs 20 lakhs along with intrest @ 9% w e.f 31/07/ 1996 till it’s realization as also the litigation charges and compensation for harassment and mental agony in the sum of rs 5 lakhs where the court after perused and examined the material available on record the court is satisfied that NCDRC has not committed any illegality or perversity in recording the finding that there was delay in delivery of consignment for which there was a reply from the respondent no.2 . However the grievance oh the appellant in this appeal is mainly on account of the NCDRC not allowing the entire claim for compensation by calculating the total weight where the court approve 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. It is a trite law that a party is not entitled to seek relief which he has not prayed for. As per the court decision the court are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the NCDRC and resultantly both the civil appeals to be dismissed.
PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer
Written by – Prachee Novo Mukherjee
