+

Supreme Court: Party Not Entitled To Seek Relief That Has Not Been Prayed For

The Supreme Court in the case M/S. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways and Anr observed while dealing with a consumer dispute, reiterated that a party is not entitled to seek relief that has not been prayed for. The bench comprising of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha was dealing with an appeal against […]

The Supreme Court in the case M/S. Rajasthan Art Emporium v. Kuwait Airways and Anr observed while dealing with a consumer dispute, reiterated that a party is not entitled to seek relief that has not been prayed for.
The bench comprising of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha was dealing with an appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, NCDRC wherein the court held that there was a delay in delivering the consignment of the complainant and that they were entitled to compensation.
The court in the case observed that even though the calculated compensation exceeded the sum of Rs. 20 Lakhs, the NCDRC held that the complainant was only entitled to have compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs along with interest @ 9% till its realization along with litigation charges and a compensation for Rs. 5 lakhs for harassment and mental agony. Thus, the complainant approached the Apex Court, against the said order.
Therefore, the complainant is an exporter of handicrafts goods and that the respondent No. 1 in the appeal in the year 1996 agreed to ship the goods through Dagga Air Agents i.e., the Respondent No. 2 in the appeal within 7 days.However, the court stated that the consignments did not reach the destination as per the delivery schedule.
The court stated that even though the NCDRC acknowledged that the loss sustained by the Complainant exceeded 20 lakhs. It was held that the complainant was entitled to only Rs. 20 lakhs. Thus, the complainant then approached the Apex Court claiming the entire amount without limiting it to Rs. 20 lakhs.
The Apex Court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case stated that this court approve and sustain the said order passed by NCDRC for the reason that in its complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the complainant or appellant has sought damages for Rs. 20 lakhs only as compensation for loss of business and reputation. It being the a trite law that a party is not entitled to seek relief which he has not prayed for.

Tags: