The conditions of
carriage are often in fine print and much difficult to understand. A Carrier is not an Insurer against delay –
but contract of carriage enforces a legal duty to deliver in the agreed time
schedule. However, the bill of lading
and contract of carriage specifies that the Carrier is not liable for loss,
damage or delay. It is expressly stated
that the Carrier does not undertake that the Goods or any documents relating
thereto shall arrive or be available at any point or place at any stage during
the Carriage or at the Port of Discharge or the Place of Delivery at any
particular time or to meet any particular requirement of any licence,
permission, sale contract, or credit of the Merchant or any market or use of
the Goods and the Carrier shall under no circumstances whatsoever and howsoever
arising be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage
caused by delay. If the Carrier should
nevertheless be held legally liable for any such direct or indirect or
consequential loss or damage caused by delay, such liability shall in no event
exceed the Freight paid.
Legal experts
however opine that there is potential liability of the carrier for the
delay. Air Carriage prescribes limits of
delay in delivery of baggage beyond certain hours and the limits vary between
domestic and International flights. In
Sept. 2014, Times of India reported of this interesting case where Courier firm
were asked to pay artist Rs. 5 lakh for negligence.
TOI reported
that the State Consumer disputes redressal commission directed two courier
companies to pay a citybased painter a relief of Rs. 5 lakh for failing to
deliver her paintings in time. Padmini Rao, of Kilpauk Garden Road, had
couriered five boxes containing 85 oil canvas paintings to New Orleans,
Louisiana through two companies -DTDC Courier and TNT India Private Ltd.
Rao's counsel
T V Lakshmanan said that her husband Ramachar Murali had booked a booth for the
exhibition and sale of the paintings at a four-day Rotary International
Convention, which was being held from May 21, 2011. The proceeds from the sale
were to be donated to the Rotary Foundation. DTDC courier, which received the
paintings on May 12, did not send it to the concerned airline carrier till May
15, Lakshmanan said. Five days later, TNT India, which was to off-load the
consignment, “gave a vague assurance“ that the parcel would reach JFK Hub, New
York by 1.30pm. Despite Murali's repeated calls to the courier companies
underlining the “urgency of receiving the parcel immediately,“ the consignment
was delivered only around 11am on May 25, the last day of the convention.
Because of the negligence of the companies, Rao suffered “enormous mental agony,
and a loss of $6000,“ said the counsel.
Subsequently,
the couple moved the Commission stating that the parcel should have taken only
three days to reach. They said that in case of an “extraordinary delay,” it should have been delivered by May 20,
adding that when they sought redressal, the Courier firms offered only an
apology letter with a paltry sum as compensation. The bench of president R
Regupathi, judicial member A K Annamalai, and member P Bakiyavathi said the
companies had admitted the delay and had tendered apology. The companies had
also offered to return the freight charges. Despite being issued notices, the
two firms had, however, failed to appear before the commission. The arguments
of Rao and Murali had not been challenged, said the bench, adding that it was a
fit case for negligence and deficiency in services.
The Forum then directed the companies to pay Rs 3 lakh
as compensation for the expenses incurred for travel, accommodation, and
booking of commercial space at the convention. The bench also slapped Rs 2 lakh
fine for causing mental agony and negligence along with Rs 5,000 as case costs.
Insurance coverage
is wider than the responsibility of the Carrier. However, under Institute Cargo Clauses and
other insuring terms, delay is specially excluded. The coverage is worded stating that the Insurer
on ship or goods is not liable for any loss proximately caused by delay,
although the delay be caused by a peril insured against.
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
9th Feb
2015.
Society Magazine
Transporting Cargo ~ Courier Directed to Pay for Delay in Delivery
Posted on the 02 June 2023 by Sampathkumar Sampath
Every trader ships
their cargo with business interest of earning a profit – that is best achieved
by making the goods available where they are in demand. The profit is determined by demand and supply
as also availability at that wanted hour.
Thus delay in transportation – whatsoever be the reason will only affect
the trader.
The conditions of
carriage are often in fine print and much difficult to understand. A Carrier is not an Insurer against delay –
but contract of carriage enforces a legal duty to deliver in the agreed time
schedule. However, the bill of lading
and contract of carriage specifies that the Carrier is not liable for loss,
damage or delay. It is expressly stated
that the Carrier does not undertake that the Goods or any documents relating
thereto shall arrive or be available at any point or place at any stage during
the Carriage or at the Port of Discharge or the Place of Delivery at any
particular time or to meet any particular requirement of any licence,
permission, sale contract, or credit of the Merchant or any market or use of
the Goods and the Carrier shall under no circumstances whatsoever and howsoever
arising be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage
caused by delay. If the Carrier should
nevertheless be held legally liable for any such direct or indirect or
consequential loss or damage caused by delay, such liability shall in no event
exceed the Freight paid.
Legal experts
however opine that there is potential liability of the carrier for the
delay. Air Carriage prescribes limits of
delay in delivery of baggage beyond certain hours and the limits vary between
domestic and International flights. In
Sept. 2014, Times of India reported of this interesting case where Courier firm
were asked to pay artist Rs. 5 lakh for negligence.
TOI reported
that the State Consumer disputes redressal commission directed two courier
companies to pay a citybased painter a relief of Rs. 5 lakh for failing to
deliver her paintings in time. Padmini Rao, of Kilpauk Garden Road, had
couriered five boxes containing 85 oil canvas paintings to New Orleans,
Louisiana through two companies -DTDC Courier and TNT India Private Ltd.
Rao's counsel
T V Lakshmanan said that her husband Ramachar Murali had booked a booth for the
exhibition and sale of the paintings at a four-day Rotary International
Convention, which was being held from May 21, 2011. The proceeds from the sale
were to be donated to the Rotary Foundation. DTDC courier, which received the
paintings on May 12, did not send it to the concerned airline carrier till May
15, Lakshmanan said. Five days later, TNT India, which was to off-load the
consignment, “gave a vague assurance“ that the parcel would reach JFK Hub, New
York by 1.30pm. Despite Murali's repeated calls to the courier companies
underlining the “urgency of receiving the parcel immediately,“ the consignment
was delivered only around 11am on May 25, the last day of the convention.
Because of the negligence of the companies, Rao suffered “enormous mental agony,
and a loss of $6000,“ said the counsel.
Subsequently,
the couple moved the Commission stating that the parcel should have taken only
three days to reach. They said that in case of an “extraordinary delay,” it should have been delivered by May 20,
adding that when they sought redressal, the Courier firms offered only an
apology letter with a paltry sum as compensation. The bench of president R
Regupathi, judicial member A K Annamalai, and member P Bakiyavathi said the
companies had admitted the delay and had tendered apology. The companies had
also offered to return the freight charges. Despite being issued notices, the
two firms had, however, failed to appear before the commission. The arguments
of Rao and Murali had not been challenged, said the bench, adding that it was a
fit case for negligence and deficiency in services.
The Forum then directed the companies to pay Rs 3 lakh
as compensation for the expenses incurred for travel, accommodation, and
booking of commercial space at the convention. The bench also slapped Rs 2 lakh
fine for causing mental agony and negligence along with Rs 5,000 as case costs.
Insurance coverage
is wider than the responsibility of the Carrier. However, under Institute Cargo Clauses and
other insuring terms, delay is specially excluded. The coverage is worded stating that the Insurer
on ship or goods is not liable for any loss proximately caused by delay,
although the delay be caused by a peril insured against.
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
9th Feb
2015.
The conditions of
carriage are often in fine print and much difficult to understand. A Carrier is not an Insurer against delay –
but contract of carriage enforces a legal duty to deliver in the agreed time
schedule. However, the bill of lading
and contract of carriage specifies that the Carrier is not liable for loss,
damage or delay. It is expressly stated
that the Carrier does not undertake that the Goods or any documents relating
thereto shall arrive or be available at any point or place at any stage during
the Carriage or at the Port of Discharge or the Place of Delivery at any
particular time or to meet any particular requirement of any licence,
permission, sale contract, or credit of the Merchant or any market or use of
the Goods and the Carrier shall under no circumstances whatsoever and howsoever
arising be liable for any direct, indirect or consequential loss or damage
caused by delay. If the Carrier should
nevertheless be held legally liable for any such direct or indirect or
consequential loss or damage caused by delay, such liability shall in no event
exceed the Freight paid.
Legal experts
however opine that there is potential liability of the carrier for the
delay. Air Carriage prescribes limits of
delay in delivery of baggage beyond certain hours and the limits vary between
domestic and International flights. In
Sept. 2014, Times of India reported of this interesting case where Courier firm
were asked to pay artist Rs. 5 lakh for negligence.
TOI reported
that the State Consumer disputes redressal commission directed two courier
companies to pay a citybased painter a relief of Rs. 5 lakh for failing to
deliver her paintings in time. Padmini Rao, of Kilpauk Garden Road, had
couriered five boxes containing 85 oil canvas paintings to New Orleans,
Louisiana through two companies -DTDC Courier and TNT India Private Ltd.
Rao's counsel
T V Lakshmanan said that her husband Ramachar Murali had booked a booth for the
exhibition and sale of the paintings at a four-day Rotary International
Convention, which was being held from May 21, 2011. The proceeds from the sale
were to be donated to the Rotary Foundation. DTDC courier, which received the
paintings on May 12, did not send it to the concerned airline carrier till May
15, Lakshmanan said. Five days later, TNT India, which was to off-load the
consignment, “gave a vague assurance“ that the parcel would reach JFK Hub, New
York by 1.30pm. Despite Murali's repeated calls to the courier companies
underlining the “urgency of receiving the parcel immediately,“ the consignment
was delivered only around 11am on May 25, the last day of the convention.
Because of the negligence of the companies, Rao suffered “enormous mental agony,
and a loss of $6000,“ said the counsel.
Subsequently,
the couple moved the Commission stating that the parcel should have taken only
three days to reach. They said that in case of an “extraordinary delay,” it should have been delivered by May 20,
adding that when they sought redressal, the Courier firms offered only an
apology letter with a paltry sum as compensation. The bench of president R
Regupathi, judicial member A K Annamalai, and member P Bakiyavathi said the
companies had admitted the delay and had tendered apology. The companies had
also offered to return the freight charges. Despite being issued notices, the
two firms had, however, failed to appear before the commission. The arguments
of Rao and Murali had not been challenged, said the bench, adding that it was a
fit case for negligence and deficiency in services.
The Forum then directed the companies to pay Rs 3 lakh
as compensation for the expenses incurred for travel, accommodation, and
booking of commercial space at the convention. The bench also slapped Rs 2 lakh
fine for causing mental agony and negligence along with Rs 5,000 as case costs.
Insurance coverage
is wider than the responsibility of the Carrier. However, under Institute Cargo Clauses and
other insuring terms, delay is specially excluded. The coverage is worded stating that the Insurer
on ship or goods is not liable for any loss proximately caused by delay,
although the delay be caused by a peril insured against.
With regards – S.
Sampathkumar
9th Feb
2015.
