ORAL ORDER

                          (PASSED ON 14/03/2011)

Adv.N.S.Wadiyalwar for the appellant. Heard. This appeal is directed against the order dated 30/04/2010 passed in consumer complaint No.79/07, M/s Univerth textiles Ltd. Vs. Jacair Services Pvt.Ltd.& Ors. passed by additional Mumbai suburban district consumer disputes redressal forum, at Bandra Mumbai. (the forum in short). The complaint stood dismissed and feeling aggrieved thereby original complainant preferred this appeal.

          Undisputedly, the cargo that is all wool piece dyed worsted finished fabric was handed over to Respondent No.1 Jacair Services Pvt.Ltd. through Respondent No.2, UT worldwide (I) Ltd. for being transported by air from Mumbai to Manchester. Further the cargo was entrusted to emirates Respondent No.3, Emirates Sky Cargo, who actually carried the cargo to Manchester Airport. The cargo was then placed in the custody of the custom department, where, for non clearance of the goods by the consignee, the custom department destroyed the goods. It is the case of the appellant/complainant that the transporter failed to deliver the goods to HSBC bank Ltd and therefore, there being deficiency in service, they are responsible for the loss sustained.

          According to Respondent/Opposite party No.1, the carrier of the cargo namely Respondent/ Opposite party No.3,Emirates Sky Cargo submitted that they had fulfilled their obligation by carrying the goods to Manchester airport i.e. the destination of the cargo. The goods, since requiring the custom clearance, were placed under the control of the custom department and the consignee was informed. The consignee failed to get released the documents from HSBC Bank on payment and failed to get cleared the goods from the custom department. Under the circumstances, the goods were destroyed by the custom department. Respondent/ Opposite party No.2 submitted that it was merely a forwarding agent of the complainant and Opposite party No.3 Emirate Sky Cargo. Since it completed the task entrusted to it, once the goods were delivered to air carrier in Mumbai their job is over and thus, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

          The forum below carefully considered and assessed all these aspects and relying upon the decision of the National Commission in the matter of Air France Cargo Vs. M/s Pillaiyar Export and Ors.(National Commission & S.C. on Consumer Cases,1986-96), held that there is no deficiency in service established against the Respondent/ Opposite parties and dismissed the consumer complaint.

          We find the view taken by the Forum below is just and proper and according to law. Thus we find the appeal devoid of any substance and holding accordingly, we pass the following order.

                                                          ORDER

          The appeal is not admitted and stands rejected accordingly.