This appeal is against the order of Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Consumer Complaint No.14 of 2004. When the matter came up on 10.11.2006, this Commission accepted the prayer of the appellant Swiss Air Cargo and stayed the operation of the impugned order, subject to deposit 50% of the amount before the State Commission. Respondents No.2 and 4 had remained absent, despite publication of the notice in the local newspapers. Therefore, on 30.4.2007 it was decided to proceed against them ex-parte. The matter was finally heard on 25.7.2011 and 26.7.2011. 2. The case of the Complainant, M/s. Century Silk Inc. before the State Commission was that the Complainant is an exporter of silk fabric to several countries. They had booked a cargo for Athens, Greece on 20.3.2003, through OP-1/M/s. A.V. Thomas & Co. Ltd. The goods were dispatched on 19.3.2003. Allegedly, OP-1 had agreed to deliver the cargo at destination on 25.3.2003. But, on 21.4.2003, the Complainant was informed that the cargo was still in Mumbai. The purchaser cancelled the order resulting the loss of business about Rs.24,00,000/- and surrender of export benefits of Rs.30,000/-. The Complainant has therefore, claimed a compensation of Rs.27.08 lakhs. 3. The defence of the OPs was that the consignment could not be loaded on to the aircraft due to its large size resulting in delay on the Zurich-Athens Sector. It was also argued that when the consignee had accepted the delivery of the goods without any protest, the Complainant was not entitled to any compensation. The OPs also took the plea that the goods were being transported to Athens for a commercial purpose and therefore, the Complainant is not a consumer. 4. The plea of commercial purpose was not accepted by the State Commission, on the ground that the services of the OPs were availed only for transportation of goods from Bangalore to Athens. As this did not involve any sale, the question of commercial purpose did not arise. The Commission also noted that the goods eventually reached Athens on 25.4.2003, after delay of a month. The delivery was accepted by the consignee but he demanded 15% amount paid on account of this delay, amounting to 1499 Euro, resulting in actual loss to the Complainant. The State Commission held OP-5 liable to pay 4,000 US $ (equivalent Rs.1,80,000/-) with interest of 9% and Rs.5,000/- towards cost. OP-5/Swiss Air Cargo has therefore, filed this appeal against the order of the State Commission, impleading the Complainant as Respondent No.1 and OPs 1 to 4 as Respondents 2 to 5. 5. The main ground for appeal is that the ultimate consignee has accepted the delivery on 29.4.2003, without any complaint. There is no evidence of cancellation of contract by the buyer. The other grounds are that the complainant is not a consumer and that the delay was due to factors beyond the control of the airline. 6. We have perused the records and heard the counsels for the rival parties. Learned counsel for the appellant/OP-5 argued that the State Commission has awarded a compensation of Rs.1.8 lakhs, when the value of the total order itself was Rs.5.5 lakhs. This too, was in a situation where the consignee has accepted the consignment without any protest over the delay of about a month. The stand of the Appellant is misleading. We find evidence on record to show that it was a case where full payment had been made by the purchaser on 7.4.2003, which was full three weeks before the consignment was physically received by him on 29.4.2003. Therefore, the buyer demanded refund of 15% in his letter of 30.7.2003. There is another letter on record, from Chief Executive of complainant company to UCO Bank, Koramangala, Bangalore dated 28.8.2003 in which the Bank has been advised to release 15% (Euro 1494) with a clear direction to remit the amount. It is not the case of the appellant that despite such clear direction, the amount was not remitted by UCO Bank. Therefore, it is clear from the record that the delay in delivery of the consignment, put the seller/complainant to a clear financial liability. The same amount has been awarded as compensation, by the State Commission. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/OP-5 argued that the problem was due to small size of the aircraft, for which they cannot be held responsible. He also argued that the matter had been taken up with the Complainant through the letter of 21.4.2003. It says— “This is to confirm to you that the above shipment is still at BOM due to non-compliance of your Agent in authorizing us uplift of the said consignment on to another airline. We would hence request your Agent to liaise with us to have this transferred to another carrier for transportation, we will communicate to you the rates if different from ours on hearing from you.” 8. We find no justification for this communication and the request it contained. As learned counsel for the respondent-1/complainant clarified, the consignment was booked from Mumbai to Athens. The choice of airline was not of the respondent but the appellant. Therefore, the communication was totally uncalled for. We have perused the relevant invoice (Page 44 of the Paper book). It shows ‘Bangalore’ as the port of loading and ‘Athens’ as the port of discharge. The column ‘Vessel/flight No.’ is left blank. In this background, the stand taken in the letter of 21.4.2003 becomes totally devoid of justification. 9. On his plea of commercial transaction, the appellant has cited the ruling of this Commission in Southern Petrochemical Industries Corpn. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. British Airways world Cargo, 1 (2007) CPJ 74 (NC). In this case a consignment of electronic equipment was sent by M/s. Siemens, Germany to Southern Petrochemical Industries in Chennai. The consignment was damaged while in the custody of the carrier i.e. British Air Ways World Cargo. Eventually, the appeal and a complaint both were dismissed by the National Commission for different reasons. However, the Commission clearly held that the appellant was a consumer. Therefore, facts of this case as well as the decision are of no help to the appellant. We find ourselves in agreement with the interpretation given by the State Commission and with consequent rejection of this plea. 10. For the reasons detailed above, we find no merit in this appeal. The same is dismissed and the order of the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in CC No. 14 of 2004 confirmed. No order as to costs. | 
