Kuwait Airways found liable for delay in delivery of goods

(Theory of Vicarious Liability of Principal for the Act of agent)

Normally no person is held responsible for the wrongs done by someone else. But under the theory of Vicarious Liability a person can be held liable for the conduct of another person. This all happens due to the relationship with a wrong doer

Kuwait Airways is held bound by the promise held by its agent that the goods shall be delivered within one week time but were in fact, delivered after one and a half month.

M/S. Rajasthan Art Emporium Versus Kuwait Airways & Anr

Civil Appeal No. 9194 Of 2012&Civil Appeal No. 9106 Of 2012

Decided on November 09, 2023. New Delhi NC

Dr Prem Lata ,Legal Head

 

The facts leading to the above judgment by NC are as hereunder:

The complainant got a contract from M/s. Williams Sonoma Inc. USA for supply of handicraft goods. Accordingly complainant had to send three shipments of 1538 packages to the consignee on an urgent basis, which was specifically informed to the Airways On 22.07.1996 through its agent who promised delivery within 7 days. As per the schedule, the entire consignment was supposed to reach at Memphis by 31.07.1996.  The consignments did not reach the destination. A revised delivery schedule was given on 05.08.1996, which mentioned the date of delivery on 06.08.1996. However, the consignment did not reach at the destination even as per the revised delivery schedule. After rescheduling also some cartons were missing

Referred clauses from Contract act:

Section 188 of the Contract Act “

“An agent, having an authority to do an act, has authority to do every lawful thing which is necessary in order to do such act.”

Section 237 of the Contract Act

“When an agent has, without authority, done acts or incurred obligations to third persons on behalf of his principal, the principal is bound by such acts or obligations

Arguments in Defence by OP Airways:

a)      Time was not the essence of contract entered into between the parties.

b)      The complainant sent the consignment through Kuwait Airways, knowing fully well that it has various stops over at Kuwait, Chicago and Memphis, which would consume a lot of time period to deliver the consignment.

Commission observed and held-

       I.            The fax message sent by agent through whom the consignment was booked to be shipped by the Airways goes to show that the goods shall be delivered at Chicago Memphis on 29.07.1996, 31.07.1996 and 31.07.1996.

    II.            Airways never took a plea that the agent was not its authorised person or he had no authority to give schedule of delivery of consignment. Hence Airways vicariously liable for the act of his agent

The following relationships lead to Vicarious Liability:

1.      Liability of the Principal for the act of his Agent

2.      Liability of the Partners

3.      Liability of the Master for the act of his Servant

Liability of the Principal for the act of his Agent

When a principal authorizes his agent to perform any act, he becomes liable for the act of such agent provided the agent has conducted it in the course of performance of duties.
Test is who has consented for the act

·         Insurance agents

·         Airlines Agents

·         Agents of Financing companies

Liability of the Partners

·         For the tort committed by a partner of a firm, in the normal course of business of that partnership, other partners are responsible to the same extent as that of the partner who is in fault. The liability thus arising will be joint and several.

·         General terms of partnership deed make both liable

Liability of the Master for the act of his Servant

‘He who does an act through another is deemed in law to do it himself’.

This relation is established either by way of employment contract or contract for certain works to be done on behalf of master for his benefit
the independent contractor carries out his work, not as a representative but as a principal.
Example: Cases of MARUTI UDYOG AND its DEALERS =RELATIONSHIP –Principle to Principle and not of agent though Manufacturer liable for manufacturing defects
Law laid down under workman compensation act 1923
The vicarious liability of an employer towards its worker under  industry  injury sustained /damage caused to body /parts/permanent or disability  or death of a worker during the course of duty;
 
“Arising out of and in the course of employment “
 
Doctrine of Notional extension  of employer’s premises
Sourashtra Salt manufacturing company v BaiValu Raju 1958 SC 881”
 
“The question when does an employment begin and who does it cease ,depends upon the facts of each case .The employment does not necessarily end when the ‘down “ signal is given or when the workman leaves the actual workshop where he is working .There is a notional extension at both the entry and exit by time and space “

Previous

Next