The Supreme Court, while dealing with a consumer dispute, reiterated that a party is not entitled to seek relief that has not been prayed for.
A bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice PS Narasimha was dealing with an appeal against an order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC) in which it was held that there was a delay in delivering the consignment of the complainant and that they were entitled to compensation.
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 of Rs. 5 lakhs for harassment and mental agony. Against this order the complainant had approached the Apex Court.
The Complainant is an exporter of handicrafts goods. In 1996, Kuwait Airways (Respondent No. 1 in the appeal), agreed to ship the goods through Dagga Air Agents (Respondent No. 2 in the appeal) within 7 days. However, the consignments did not reach the destination as per the delivery schedule.
Even though the NCDRC acknowledged that the loss sustained by the Complainant exceeded 20 lakhs. It held that the complainant was entitled to only Rs. 20 lakhs. The complainant then approached the Apex Court claiming the entire amount without limiting it to Rs. 20 lakhs. The Apex Court however, refused to interfere with the order of the NCDRC.
“… we approve and sustain the order passed by the NCDRC for the reason that in its complaint under Section 21(a)(i) of the Consumer Protection Act 7 986, the complainant/appellant has sought damages for Rs. 20 lakhs only as compensation for loss of business and reputation. It is a trite law that a party is not entitled to seek relief which he has not prayed for/the Apex Court held.
Case Title: M/S. RAJASTHAN ART EMPORIUM V. KUWAIT AIRWAYS & ANR., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9106 OF 2012
