Delhi District Court
Deepak Kharb vs Dhl Express India Pvt. Ltd on 16 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA, CIVIL JUDGE-01
(SOUTH WEST) DWARKA COURT, NEW DELHI
Unique case ID No. 529/2021
CNR No. DLSW030011632021
IN THE MATTER OF: -
DEEPAK KHARB
S/O SHRI BIJENDER KHARB,
R/O HOUSE NO. 218, GROUND FLOOR, BLOCK-C,
VIKAS PURI, NEW DELHI 110018
...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1.DHL EXPRESS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
EXPRESS COURIER TERMINAL ADJOINING TO INTERNATIONAL CARGO COMPLEX, TERMINAL-II, IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI-110037 THROUGH ITS C.M.D./CHAIRMAN E-MAIL AT: ([email protected]) ([email protected])
2. CELEBI DELHI CARGO TERMINAL MANAGEMENT INDIA PVT. LTD. CARGO TERMINAL, IGI AIRPORT, NEW DELHI-110037 THROUGH ITS C.M.D./CHAIRMAN E-MAIL AT: ([email protected]) ([email protected]) ([email protected]) ...DEFENDANTS Digitally signed by ANUBHAV Date of Institution : 04.06.2021 ANUBHAV SHARMA Date: Date of framing of issues : 18.03.2024 SHARMA 2026.03.16 04:07:27 +0530 CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 1 of 24 pages Date of final arguments : 02.02.2026 Date of Decision : 16.03.2026 Decision : PARTLY DECREED SUIT FOR SUIT FOR RECOVERY AND DAMAGES
1. By way of this judgment, this Court shall dispose of a suit for recovery and damages as per law filed by the plaintiff against the defendants. Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it is necessary to dwell upon the plethora of pleadings in the present suit. AVERMENTS OF THE PLAINT: -
2. Succinctly, the case of the Plaintiff is that he is a law-abiding citizen of India. Defendant No.1 is a postal and logistics company engaged in providing courier, freight forwarding, and international delivery services, while Defendant No.2 provides cargo handling and warehousing services at the Delhi International Airport under the name Çelebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd.
3. It is averred that a consignment was booked with Defendant No.1 under Air Way Bill No. 4177841161 dated 19.03.2020 from Australia, addressed to the Plaintiff. The said consignment was to be delivered to the Plaintiff through Defendant No.1.
4. According to the Plaintiff, when the consignment did not reach him within the expected time, he contacted the customer care of Defendant No.1 in March 2020. He was informed that due to the nationwide lockdown imposed on account of the COVID-19 pandemic, the services of Defendant No.1 had been affected. The Plaintiff was assured that the consignment would be delivered after the easing of lockdown restrictions.
5. The Plaintiff submits that he repeatedly contacted Defendant No.1 regarding the shipment and was informed that the consignment had Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 2 of 24 pages 2026.03.16 04:07:36 +0530 not been cleared by customs. Defendant No.1 allegedly assured the Plaintiff that he would be informed once customs clearance was resumed.
6. The Plaintiff further states that on 06.05.2020 he received an email from Defendant No.1 informing him that the consignment had arrived at Delhi and that he should visit the Airport Cargo Terminal for customs clearance. Upon visiting the terminal, the Plaintiff was informed by Defendant No.2 that the consignment had arrived in Delhi on 22.03.2020 and that demurrage charges were payable for the delay in taking delivery. The Plaintiff was allegedly told that the airport cargo services were operational at that time and that Defendant No.1 ought to have taken steps for clearance earlier.
7. The Plaintiff claims that he thereafter sent emails to Defendant No.1 raising objections and seeking clarification regarding the delay and the imposition of demurrage charges. However, according to the Plaintiff, Defendant No.1 gave contradictory explanations regarding the delay and sought to shift responsibility to customs authorities and Defendant No.2.
8. The Plaintiff further contends that Defendant No.1 wrongly stated through its email dated 09.05.2023 that attempts were made to contact him earlier, whereas he had been in regular telephonic contact with the customer care of Defendant No.1 and his contact details were available with them. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants failed to inform him timely about the arrival of the shipment, which resulted in the levy of demurrage charges.
9. It is the Plaintiff's case that despite repeated requests, the Defendants did not resolve the issue and he was compelled to pay a sum of ₹46,855/- as demurrage charges to Defendant No.2 on 11.05.2020 to obtain release of the consignment.
10. The Plaintiff alleges that the conduct of the Defendants Digitally signed by ANUBHAV CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 3 of 24 pages ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:07:44 +0530 amounts to deficiency in service, unfair trade practice, and negligence due to which the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 27.11.2020 to the Defendants. Defendant No.2 replied to the notice, whereas Defendant No.1 did not respond. Hence, the Plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking following reliefs
a) To pass a decree of INR 46,855/- along with interest pendente-lite and future @ 18% p.a. till the realization of amount in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants;
b) To pass a decree of INR 1,00,000/- as compensation for damages in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for the harassment, hardship, torture, pain and agony both physical and mental, victimization and losses caused to the Plaintiff on account of unfair trade practice, deficiency in service, and unprofessional conduct at the hands of the Defendants;
c) Costs of the suit along with litigation expenses may also be awarded in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant;
d) To pass such order/ relief as this Hon'ble court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of Plaintiff and against the Defendants, in the interest of justice.
AVERMENTS OF WRITTEN STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT NO.1
11. Per Contra, Defendant No.1 submits that the present suit is not maintainable as there exists no contract or privity of contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1. According to Defendant No.1, the shipment in question was booked in Australia by the shipper, KAM Logistics Pty Ltd, under Air Waybill No. 4177841161 dated 19.03.2020. The freight charges were also paid by the said shipper through its account with Defendant No.1. It is submitted that the shipment was accepted subject to Digitally the DHL Express Terms and Conditions of Carriage, which govern the signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:07:53 +0530 CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 4 of 24 pages contractual relationship between the shipper and Defendant No.1.
12. Defendant No.1 has contended that since the Plaintiff neither booked the shipment nor paid any consideration, he has no locus standi to institute the present suit. It is further submitted that the shipper, KAM Logistics Pty Ltd., being the party who entered into the contract with Defendant No.1, is a necessary party, and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party.
13. It is further the stand of Defendant No.1 that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction, as the contract of carriage was executed in Australia and the consideration was also paid there. On merits, Defendant No.1 submits that the shipment was transported promptly and reached Delhi Airport on 22.03.2020, i.e., within three days of booking. However, immediately thereafter a lockdown was imposed by the Government due to the COVID-19 pandemic, restricting the functioning of private offices, movement of private and public transport, and limiting airport operations to essential goods only.
14. According to Defendant No.1, due to these lockdown restrictions, clearance of non-essential shipments was not permitted and customs authorities were primarily engaged in clearing essential goods such as medicines and oxygen cylinders. Consequently, the shipment remained in the custody of the customs authorities and Defendant No.2, till restrictions were relaxed a bit.
15. Defendant No.1 has further submitted that under the import procedure prescribed under the Customs Act, 1962, imported goods are first placed in the custody of the customs authorities and the custodian warehouse and do not come into the possession of the courier company until customs clearance is granted. Therefore, the answering Defendant had no control over the shipment during the said period.
Digitally
16. It is also contended that the demurrage charges were levied signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:08:00 +0530 CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 5 of 24 pages by Defendant No.2, the warehouse operator, and not by Defendant No.1. Defendant No.1 submits that it never demanded or collected any such charges from the Plaintiff.
17. Defendant No.1 further states that once the lockdown restrictions were relaxed in the first week of May 2020 and customs clearance of non-essential goods was resumed; the Plaintiff was informed through email dated 06.05.2020 to approach the airport cargo terminal for clearance of the shipment. According to Defendant No.1, it had acted diligently and in good faith and had fulfilled its obligations under the applicable terms and conditions.
18. Defendant No.1 has also relied upon the DHL Terms and Conditions, particularly the clause limiting liability in circumstances beyond its control. It is contended that the delay in clearance occurred due to the extraordinary situation of the COVID-19 lockdown and the restrictions imposed by the Government, which were beyond the control of Defendant No.1.
19. It is therefore submitted that Defendant No.1 has not committed any deficiency in service, negligence, or unfair trade practice. The Plaintiff, according to Defendant No.1, has failed to establish any breach of contract or liability on its part. Accordingly, Defendant No.1 has prayed that the present suit be dismissed with exemplary costs. AVERMENTS OF WRITTEN STATEMENT BY DEFENDANT NO.2
20. On another hand, Defendant No.2 has contended that the present suit is not maintainable against Defendant No.2, as the Plaintiff has suppressed material facts and has failed to disclose any cause of action against it. Defendant No.2 submits that there exists no privity of contract between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2, and therefore it has been wrongly impleaded in the present suit.
21. It is further contended that Defendant No.2 is neither a Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 6 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:08:07 +0530 necessary nor a proper party to the proceedings and the suit is liable to be dismissed against it for mis-joinder of parties. Defendant No.2 submits that it is authorized to operate and manage the cargo terminal at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, and provides warehousing, cargo handling and related services pursuant to a concession agreement with Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (DIAL).
22. According to Defendant No.2, the charges collected for storage and processing of cargo are statutory charges regulated under the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994 and the Airports Authority of India (Storage and Processing of Cargo, Courier and Express Goods and Postal Mail) Regulations, 2003, as well as the regulatory framework of the Airports Economic Regulatory Authority of India (AERA).
23. It is the stand of Defendant No.2 that the demurrage charges levied on the Plaintiff were statutory charges payable for storage of cargo beyond the permissible free period, and the answering Defendant is legally entitled to recover the same. It is further submitted that the consignment in question arrived at the cargo terminal on 22.03.2020 and was released to the Plaintiff on 11.05.2020, after payment of applicable demurrage charges. According to Defendant No.2, the Plaintiff failed to claim the consignment within the 48-hour free period, and therefore demurrage charges were automatically levied in accordance with the applicable regulations.
24. Defendant No.2 has further submitted that the delay in clearance of the consignment was not attributable to it. It contends that during the relevant period, warehousing services, cargo operations and customs clearance activities were exempted from the lockdown restrictions imposed by the Government of India during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, reliance has been placed upon the orders and guidelines issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, which permitted operation of airports, cargo terminals, and transportation of goods throughout the lockdown Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 7 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:08:15 +0530 period.
25. Defendant No.2 asserts that its operations continued uninterrupted during the lockdown and that it provided services round the clock while incurring substantial expenses to maintain the warehousing facilities and ensure safety and security of consignments. It is submitted that the Plaintiff was free to obtain release of the consignment at any time after its arrival but failed to do so for nearly two months.
26. It is further contended that Defendant No.2 had no obligation to inform the Plaintiff regarding the arrival of the consignment, and that it was the responsibility of the consignor or consignee to track the shipment and arrange for its clearance. Defendant No.2 also states that the Plaintiff has not produced any communication prior to May 2020 requesting release of the consignment.
27. According to Defendant No.2, it neither committed any negligence nor rendered any deficient service. It merely stored the cargo safely in its warehouse and levied demurrage charges strictly in accordance with the statutory regulations. The Plaintiff, therefore, has no legal right to claim refund of demurrage charges or seek damages from Defendant No.2 and has prayed that the present suit be dismissed against it with exemplary costs.
REPLICATION
28. In replication, averments of the plaint have been re-iterated by the plaintiff and contents of the written statement of defendant no.1 and 2 have been denied.
29. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 18.03.2024, which are as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 46,855/-
along with interest or not? OPP Digitally signed by ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 8 of 24 pages ANUBHAV SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:08:25 +0530
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for compensation of Rs.
1,00,000/- on the account of harassment, hardship and agony etc., or not? OPP
3. Relief.
PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE: -
30. To prove his case, plaintiff has examined Sh. Lakshman Singh who has stepped into the witness box and examined himself as PW1.
In his testimony, PW1 has tendered his evidentiary affidavit being Ex.PW1/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and also relied upon the following documents:
i. SPA/AL. dt. 07.1.2022 is marked as Mark A. ii. Copy of Airway Bill is Ex.PW1/2. iii. Copy of email dt. 06.05.2020 is Ex.PW1/3. iv. Copy of emails dt. 09.05.2020 and 11.5.2020 are Ex.PW1/4 (colly).
v. Copy of emails dt. 09.05.2020, 11.05.2020, 12.05.2020, 14.05.2020 and 15.05.2020 are Ex.PW1/5 (colly).
vi. Cash receipt and gate pass dt. 11.05.2020 are Ex.PW1/6 (colly). vii. Office copy of legal notice along with its delivery reports are Ex.PW1/7 (colly).
viii. Reply dt. 10.12.2020 is Ex.PW1/8.
ix. Certificates u/s. 65 B of Indian Evidence Act are Ex.PW1/9 (colly).
31. PW1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for Defendant No. 1. During cross-examination, he stated that he is the authorized representative of the plaintiff vide Mark A, which has been signed by him at point A. He clarified that Mark A is a photocopy of the original SPA, and that the original SPA is not on the judicial file (Volume I), but he can bring the same if required. He further stated that the plaintiff is his son-in-law, but he does not know whether this fact is mentioned in Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 9 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:08:33 +0530 the SPA dated 07.01.2022.
32. When asked about the source of his personal knowledge of the present case, PW1 stated that at the time of the incidents mentioned in his affidavit, the plaintiff was residing with him due to the COVID-19 lockdown. He further stated that the consignment was booked through Defendant No. 1 from Australia by a friend of the plaintiff.
33. PW1 confirmed that he is aware of the facts of the present case. He stated that the consignment was booked on 19.03.2020 and was expected to be delivered within 4 to 5 days at his address. When the consignment did not arrive on time, they contacted the customer care of Defendant No. 1, probably about a week after the due date. He stated that they were informed by Defendant No. 1 that there was an issue in clearing the goods due to the COVID-19 lockdown, and that the customer care assured them that the goods would be delivered soon after easing of the lockdown. However, the goods were not delivered, and they had to collect the same from the airport after receiving an email from Defendant No. 1 dated 06.05.2020.
34. PW1 further stated that he cannot specify the date when SPA Mark A was produced before the Court and is not aware whether he was ordered to file a separate application to bring on record the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. He stated that the original airway bill has not been filed with the plaint, as they were provided photographs of the same by Defendant No. 1. He denied the suggestion that he is not aware of the facts of the present case. He also denied that all the documents are mere photocopies and stated that he wishes to justify the same.
35. PW1 was further cross-examined by learned counsel for Defendant No. 2. During cross-examination, he stated that the plaintiff is presently residing in Australia and used to travel to India occasionally. When asked about the filing of the case in April 2021 and the plaintiff's Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 10 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:08:41 +0530 subsequent travel, he stated that the plaintiff left for Australia about one month after filing the case and may have returned to India in 2022. He denied the suggestion that no power of attorney was executed in his favor and explained that this was the reason he had not produced the original document in Court that day.
36. When asked whether he had filed an application seeking permission to pursue the case on behalf of the plaintiff and whether the same was allowed by the Court, he stated that he had filed such an application but could not say whether the Court had allowed it. He confirmed that the replication, evidence, and affidavits of admission and denial had been filed under his signature. He denied that he had signed these documents on behalf of the plaintiff, Deepak Kharb, without the permission of the Court.
37. PW1 admitted that the consignment was booked with Defendant No. 1 in Australia and was to be delivered through Defendant No. 1. He stated that all communications prior to the delivery of the goods were between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1, and that he, along with the plaintiff, went to the airport to collect the goods. When asked whether email communications were conducted with him or the plaintiff, he stated that the communications were between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 1 in his presence at his residence. He admitted that the fact that the plaintiff was residing at his residence and that each email was communicated in his presence had not been mentioned in his affidavit.
38. PW1 further stated that he currently does not have access to the plaintiff's email ID and has not placed on record any email or letter sent to either Defendant No. 1 or Defendant No. 2 for the release of the consignment. He confirmed that communications prior to the email dated 06.05.2020 were conducted telephonically with Defendant No. 1, but he has not placed any call records on record. He admitted that Defendant No. Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 11 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:08:49 +0530 2 released the consignment immediately after being approached and upon depositing the demurrage charges, and that there was no communication between the plaintiff and Defendant No. 2 prior to the release of the consignment. He also confirmed that he had received the reply to the legal notice sent to Defendant No. 2 and that there was no negligence or breach of contract on the part of Defendant No. 2. He denied the suggestion that he is deposing falsely. Cross-examination of PW-1 concluded on 17.03.2025.
39. Plaintiff has also examined himself and has stepped into the witness box and examined himself as PW2. In his testimony, PW1 has tendered his evidentiary affidavit being Ex.PW2/A wherein he reiterated the contents of the plaint and also relied upon the following documents:
i. SPA/AL dt. 07.1.2022 is Ex.PW2/1 (OSR). ii. Copy of Air way bill dt. 19.3.2020 is already Ex.PW1/2. iii. Copy of email dt. 06.05.2020 is already Ex.PW1/3 iv. Copy of email dt. 09.05.2020 and 11.05.2020 are already Ex.PW1/4 (colly).
v. Copy of emails dt. 09.05.2020 to 15.05.2020 are already Ex.PW1/5 (colly).
vi. Copy of cash receipt and gate pass dt. 11.05.2020 are already Ex.PW1/6 (colly).
vii. Copy of legal notice dt. 27.11.2020 along with its delivery reports are already Ex.PW1/7 (colly).
viii. The reply dt. 10.12.2020 to the legal notice is already Ex.PW1/8 ix. Certificate u/s. 65 B Of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW2/2.
40. PW2 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for Defendant No. 1. During cross-examination, he stated that he has filed the present case and is the plaintiff therein. He further stated that he executed the SPA Ex.PW2/1 in favor of Shri Lakshman Singh, as he used to reside Digitally signed by ANUBHAV CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 12 of 24 pages ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:08:56 +0530 in Australia and was unable to appear on each and every date in the present case.
41. PW2 admitted that the consignment was booked with Defendant No. 1, i.e., DHL, in Australia for delivery to his residence in New Delhi, and that the booking amount was paid in Australian dollars. He stated that at the time the consignment was booked, he was in India. He could not specify the exact date when he became aware that the consignment had reached India, but he stated that he could provide the same after going through the record.
42. PW2 denied the suggestion that the consignment was booked with KAM Logistics in Australia under Airway Bill No. 4177841161 on 19.03.2020, and that Defendant No. 1 has no privity of contract with him. He further stated that the airway bill does not bear his signature since the shipment was booked in Australia. He denied the suggestion that he lacks locus standi to file the present suit.
43. PW2 also denied that his suit is not maintainable because he had not paid the consideration amount to Defendant No. 1, or because he did not sue KAM Logistics. He denied that no cause of action had arisen against Defendant No. 1. He further denied that he deliberately filed the suit in Delhi when it should have been filed in Australia. He stated that he is not aware which services were allowed or prohibited during the COVID-19 lockdown. He denied the suggestion that he filed the present suit on the basis of mere presumption.
44. PW2 was further cross-examined by learned counsel for Defendant No. 2. During cross-examination, he stated that his residential address is C-218, Ground Floor, Block C, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. He has not placed any document on record depicting this address but stated that he can produce the same if required. He further stated that he has not placed on record any document showing his address in Australia, which he can Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 13 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:09:03 +0530 also produce if required. Ex.PW2/1 depicts his two residential addresses, one being C-218, Ground Floor, Block C, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, where he was residing with his father-in-law, and the other at Binda Pur, where he had earlier resided as a tenant.
45. PW2 clarified that his father-in-law's address, as shown in Ex.PW2/1, is C-218, Ground Floor, Block C, Vikas Puri, New Delhi, whereas his father's address is B-137, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, as mentioned in his ID proofs. He admitted that he did not mention in Ex.PW2/1 that he was residing in Australia, which was the reason for executing the same. He further stated that this fact was also not mentioned in his suit or evidence affidavit.
46. PW2 stated that his consignment was booked on 19.03.2020, and he had been trying to track it. He contacted Defendant No. 1 after 3-4 days to inquire about the status of the consignment. He admitted that he had not contacted Defendant No. 2 during this period. He received information from DHL/Defendant No. 1 regarding the arrival of the goods on 06.05.2020. He also admitted that he had not filed any document on record in support of his claim that he had contacted Defendant No. 1 between 19.03.2020 and 06.05.2020, although he had telephonic conversations with Defendant No. 1 at their customer care number regarding the same.
47. PW2 stated that he contacted Defendant No. 2 only after receiving the email dated 06.05.2020 from Defendant No. 1. He was informed by Defendant No. 1 that he had to pay charges to Defendant No. 2, the custodian, for release of the consignment. He further stated that Defendant No. 2 informed him that there was no notification waiving custodian charges. He admitted that he had not communicated with Defendant No. 1 prior to 06.05.2020 regarding the release of goods. Thereafter, when he contacted Defendant No. 2, he was asked to pay Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 14 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:09:11 +0530 demurrage charges, which he paid, and his goods were released in good condition on 11.05.2020. He also stated that there was a lockdown in May 2020 due to COVID-19, although there were partial relaxations.
48. PW2 further stated that he has not read the written statement filed by Defendant No. 2, and that the replication to the written statement of Defendant No. 2 was filed upon his instructions under his signature. When shown the replication, he stated that it had been signed by his SPA/father-in-law.
49. Further cross-examination of PW-2 could not be conducted as the witness had travelled out of India. Vide order dated 05.07.2025, learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff did not wish to examine PW-2 as a witness. Subsequently, vide order dated 27.10.2025, and in view of the separate statement made by learned counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff's evidence was closed. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE: -
50. During the stage of defendant's evidence, the opportunity to lead evidence was granted to Defendant No. 1. However, vide a separate statement made by the Authorized Representative (AR) of Defendant No. 1, it was submitted that no evidence was to be led on behalf of Defendant No. 1. Consequently, the right of Defendant No. 1 to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 02.02.2026.
51. On the other hand, Defendant no 2 lead his evidence. Defendant no 2 has examined his AR namely Sh. Moaniken as DW1. In his testimony, DW1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit being Ex. D2W1/A and he reiterated the contents of the WS and also relied upon the following documents: -
i. Copy of authority letter dt. 14.11.2025 along with board resolution dt.29.05.2025 is Ex. D2W1/X. (three pages) Digitally ii. Certified copy of board resolution dt. 13.11.2017 is Ex. D2W1/1 signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:09:19 +0530 CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 15 of 24 pages iii. Certified Copy of letter of authority dt. 07.02.2022 is Ex. D2W1/Y. iv. Copy of order dt. 24.03.2020 passed by MHA is Ex. D2W1/2. v. Copy of MHA addendum order dt. 25.03.2020 is Ex. D2W 1/3 vi. Copy of clarification dt. 29.03.2020 passed by MHA is Ex.
D2W1/4.
vii. Certificate u/s. 65(b) (4) filed by the then AR is Ex. D2W1/5 viii. Certificate u/s. 63 of BSA is Ex. D2W1/6
52. DW1 was cross-examined by the learned counsel for the plaintiff. During cross-examination, he stated that no document had been filed to indicate when and by which flight the goods of the plaintiff had arrived. He further stated that no document had been filed authorizing the defendant to charge the demurrage charges claimed in the present case, nor had any document specifying the quantum of such charges been filed. He denied the suggestion that the arrival time and other details of the goods were not provided his evidentiary affidavit.
53. When asked whether he could point out any rules or regulations issued by the Government of India specifically authorizing Defendant No. 2 to charge demurrage as mentioned in paragraph 14 of his evidence, DW1 replied that Defendant No. 2 is not named in those rules, but that these are general rules applicable to authorized agencies. He further stated that, as per the booking of AWB No. 6159139706 with respect to the goods in issue, the consignment was addressed to DHL Express (India) Pvt. Ltd., IGI, Haj Terminal, Delhi (page 2 of Ex-PW1/2), and that the goods were delivered to the plaintiff as directed by DHL.
54. Regarding Ex-D2W1/X, DW1 stated that it is a scanned printout of the original document, which he did not print himself. He clarified that the document is not computer-generated but bears physical signatures, which were subsequently scanned and printed, and that the original document is not currently in his possession. He denied that Ex-
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 16 of 24 pages ANUBHAV SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:09:27 +0530 D2W1/X, or any other exhibit relied upon by him, is false or fabricated. He also denied that demurrage charges were wrongfully levied on the plaintiff and asserted that he is not deposing falsely.
55. The cross-examination of DW1 concluded on 17.11.2025. Subsequently, the defence evidence of defendant no.2 was closed on 17.11.2025 as per the separate statement of the AR for Defendant No. 2, and the matter was listed for final arguments. FINAL ARGUMENTS: -
56. Final arguments advanced by both parties were heard on 02.02.2026.
57. The file has been carefully and minutely perused and my issue-wise findings with reasons thereof are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 46,855/- along with interest or not? OPP
58. The burden to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that the consignment booked from Australia through Defendant No.1 on 19.03.2020 and the same had reached Delhi on 22.03.2020 but he was informed about its arrival only on 06.05.2020 by the Defendant No.1, due to which demurrage charges amounting to ₹46,855/- were imposed by Defendant No.2. According to the plaintiff, the delay occurred due to negligence of Defendant No.1 in informing him about the arrival of the shipment.
59. To support his case, the plaintiff examined PW1 Lakshman Singh (SPA holder) and PW2 Deepak Kharb (plaintiff himself) and relied upon the SPA/AL dt. 07.01.2022 is Ex.PW2/1, Copy of Air way bill dt. 19.03.2020 is Ex.PW1/2, Copy of email dt. 06.05.2020 is Ex.PW1/3, Copy of email dt. 09.05.2020 and 11.05.2020 are Ex.PW1/4(colly), Copy of emails dt. 09.05.2020 to 15.05.2020 are Ex.PW1/5(colly), Copy of cash Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 17 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:09:35 +0530 receipt and gate pass dt. 11.05.2020 are Ex.PW1/6(colly), Copy of legal notice dt. 27.11.2020 along with its delivery are already Ex.PW1/7(colly), The reply dt. 10.12.2020 to the legal notice is Ex.PW1/8 and Certificate u/s. 65 B Of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/9 (Colly).
60. Whereas, Defendant No. 1 contended that the suit is not maintainable due to absence of privity of contract, as the shipment was booked in Australia by KAM Logistics Pty Ltd. under Air Waybill No. 4177841161 dated 19.03.2020 and the freight charges were paid by the said shipper. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has no locus standi, and the suit is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary party, i.e., KAM Logistics Pty Ltd.
61. Defendant No. 1 has also challenged the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, stating that the contract of carriage was executed in Australia. He further states that the shipment reached Delhi Airport on 22.03.2020, but due to the COVID-19 lockdown, clearance of non-
essential goods was restricted and the shipment remained in the custody of customs authorities and the custodian warehouse (Defendant No. 2). It is further submitted that demurrage charges were levied by Defendant No. 2, and not by Defendant No. 1. He contends that the delay was caused by circumstances beyond its control and denies any deficiency in service or negligence. However, defendant no.1 does not lead any evidence in support of its contentions.
62. Defendant No.2, on the other hand, submits that it is merely the authorized custodian and operator of the cargo terminal at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi, providing warehousing and cargo handling services under a concession agreement with Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. It contends that there is no contractual relationship between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.2 and that the demurrage charges levied were statutory charges governed by the Airports Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 18 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:09:42 +0530 Authority of India Act, 1994 and the relevant cargo regulations.
63. Defendant No.2 further states that the consignment arrived on 22.03.2020 and was released on 11.05.2020 after payment of demurrage charges, which were automatically applicable as the Plaintiff failed to clear the goods within the 48-hour free period. It further asserts that cargo operations were exempted during the lockdown, and therefore the Plaintiff could have cleared the shipment earlier. Therefore, Defendant no.2 denies any negligence, deficiency in service, or liability.
64. To support its contentions, Defendant no.2 relied upon copy of authority letter dt. 14.11.2025 along with board resolution dt.29.05.2025 is Ex. D2W1/X, certified copy of board resolution dt. 13.11.2017 is Ex. D2W1/1, certified Copy of letter of authority dt. 07.02.2022 is Ex. D2W1/Y, copy of order dt. 24.03.2020 passed by MHA is Ex. D2W1/2, copy of MHA addendum order dt. 25.03.2020 is Ex. D2W 1/3, copy of clarification dt. 29.03.2020 passed by MHA is Ex. D2W1/4, certificate u/s. 65(b) (4) filed by the then AR is Ex. D2W1/5 and certificate u/s. 63 of BSA is Ex. D2W1/6.
65. From the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record, certain facts stand admitted and are not in dispute. It is admitted that the consignment in question was booked by Mohit Rathee under Air Way Bill No. 4177841161 through Defendant No. 1, with a view to deliver the goods to the plaintiff. It is further evident that while dispatching the said consignment, the consignor did not reserve any right of disposal over the goods.
66. Further, it is also not disputed that the consideration had already been paid by Mohit Rathee, and that the consignment arrived at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi on 22.03.2020. The goods were ultimately released to the plaintiff on 11.05.2020 upon payment of demurrage charges amounting to ₹46,855/-.
Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 19 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:09:50 +0530
67. The principal dispute between the parties relates to the liability for payment of these demurrage charges.
68. At the outset, the objection of Defendant No. 1 regarding lack of privity of contract is found to be untenable. The Air Way Bill (Ex. PW1/2) clearly reflects the plaintiff as the consignee of the goods. It is a well-settled proposition of law that where the property in goods passes to the consignee during transit, the consignee acquires a legally enforceable right to seek delivery and to claim damages in case of delay, loss, or negligence in the course of carriage.
69. The above said view was also taken by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in M/s Bhai Mehar Singh Kishan Singh Fruit Merchants v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1979 DELHI 158 , in which it was held that a consignee can file a suit for compensation when it was shown that he was consignee for consideration or has an interest in the goods dispatched.
70. Therefore, the plaintiff, being the consignee and the ultimate beneficiary of the contract of carriage, has a direct and substantial interest in the goods and is therefore competent to maintain the present suit. The contention of Defendant No. 1 to the contrary is accordingly rejected.
71. The second objection of Defendant No.1 relating to territorial jurisdiction is also without merit. The cause of action, in the present case, has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court, particularly in as much as the consignment arrived, was stored, and was ultimately released at Delhi upon payment of demurrage charges. Therefore, this Court is vested with jurisdiction under Section 19 & 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908.
72. Coming to the defence of defendant No.1 based on the COVID-19 lockdown, it is evident from the material placed on record, including the notifications issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs (Ex. D2W 1/3 and Ex. D2W 1/4), that cargo operations and allied services were Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 20 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:09:57 +0530 permitted to continue during the lockdown period. Accordingly, this contention of defendant no.1 is also not maintainable.
73. Further, it is also important to note that although Defendant No.1 by way of its written statement raising various defences, it chose not to lead any evidence in support of its case. Despite being granted opportunity, the authorized representative of Defendant No.1 made a statement before the Court that the defendant no.1 does not wish to lead defence evidence. In the absence of any evidence led by Defendant No.1, the assertions made in its written statement remain unsubstantiated and cannot be treated as proved.
74. No witness has been examined by Defendant No.1 to establish that timely intimation regarding the arrival of the consignment was given to the plaintiff or that the delay occurred solely due to circumstances beyond its control.
75. The evidence led by the plaintiff reveals that the consignment arrived in Delhi on 22.03.2020; however, the plaintiff was informed about its arrival only through an email dated 06.05.2020 sent by Defendant No. 1. The said email has been proved on record as Ex. PW1/3. A perusal of the contents of the email dated 09.05.2020, exhibited as Ex. PW1/4 (colly), shows that Defendant No. 1 himself admitted that, due to the non-availability of the plaintiff's email address, the arrival of the package was not intimated to the plaintiff earlier.
76. Further, Ex. PW1/5 colly reflects that Defendant No. 1 had allegedly attempted to contact the plaintiff telephonically; however, the call could not be connected as the phone was not reachable. Nevertheless, Defendant No. 1 has failed to substantiate this contention, as no supporting evidence has been placed on record to prove that such attempts were actually made.
77. Thus, there exists an unexplained and unjustified delay of Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 21 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:10:04 +0530 more than one month between the arrival of the consignment and its intimation to the plaintiff. No material has been brought on record by Defendant No. 1 to demonstrate that any reasonable, diligent, or bona fide effort was made to contact the plaintiff within this period. Such inaction clearly amounts to negligence and deficiency in service.
78. It is also evident that this delay directly resulted in the accrual of demurrage charges at the cargo terminal. The plaintiff, having no prior knowledge of the arrival of the consignment, was deprived of the opportunity to clear the goods within the free period and was consequently compelled to incur additional charges.
79. Defendant No.2, on the other hand, has taken the stand that it is merely the custodian and warehouse operator of the cargo terminal and that it levies storage and demurrage charges in accordance with applicable regulations. The evidence of DW1 shows that Defendant No.2 stored the consignment in its warehouse and released the same immediately after the plaintiff paid the applicable charges.
80. The role of Defendant No.2 was therefore limited to providing warehousing services as a custodian of imported cargo. The delay in the present case did not occur due to any act or omission on the part of Defendant No.2 but rather due to the failure of Defendant No.1 to inform the plaintiff about the arrival of the consignment within a reasonable time.
81. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the plaintiff has successfully established that he was compelled to pay demurrage charges amounting to ₹46,855/- solely due to the failure of Defendant No. 1 to inform him in a timely manner about the arrival of the consignment. The payment of the said amount stands duly proved through documentary evidence and has remained unrebutted. Accordingly, Issue No.1 is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 22 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:10:11 +0530 against Defendant No.1 only.
ISSUE NO.2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to compensation of ₹1,00,000/- on account of harassment, hardship and agony? (OPP)
82. The burden of proving this issue was also upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff has claimed compensation on the ground that due to the conduct of the defendants he suffered harassment, inconvenience and financial loss. The evidence on record shows that the plaintiff had to follow up regarding his consignment and ultimately had to visit the cargo terminal to secure release of the goods. He was also compelled to pay a substantial amount towards demurrage charges, which according to him arose due to the delay in communication by Defendant No.1.
83. While the circumstances of the case do indicate that the plaintiff faced inconvenience and hardship, the plaintiff has not placed any material on record to justify compensation to the extent of ₹1,00,000/-. The claim for compensation appears to be excessive and unsupported by evidence.
84. Nevertheless, considering the facts that the plaintiff had to incur unnecessary expenses and inconvenience due to the negligent conduct of Defendant No.1, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff deserves to be awarded reasonable compensation. Accordingly, the plaintiff is awarded a sum of ₹15,000/- as compensation for inconvenience and harassment caused to him. Thus, Issue No.2 is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against Defendant No.1 only.
Relief
85. In view of the findings recorded on the above issues, the suit of the plaintiff is partly decreed. The plaintiff is held entitled to recover a sum of ₹46,855/- from Defendant No.1 towards reimbursement of demurrage charges. The plaintiff is also awarded compensation of Digitally signed by ANUBHAV ANUBHAV SHARMA CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 23 of 24 pages SHARMA Date:
2026.03.16 04:10:17 +0530 ₹15,000/- for inconvenience and harassment. The plaintiff shall further be entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum on the amount of ₹46,855/- from the date of filing of the suit till realization from defendant no.1 only. The suit against Defendant No.2 stands dismissed.
86. No order as to costs.
87. Let decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.
88. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signedPronounced in open court ANUBHAV by ANUBHAV SHARMA Dated:16.03.2026 SHARMA Date: 2026.03.16 04:10:28 +0530 (ANUBHAV SHARMA) CJ-01 (SW)/ DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI Note: - This judgment contains 24 pages and all the pages have been ANUBHAV Digitally signed by ANUBHAV SHARMA checked and signed by me. SHARMA Date: 2026.03.16 04:10:35 +0530 (ANUBHAV SHARMA) CJ-01 (SW)/ DWARKA COURTS NEW DELHI CS No.529/2021 Judgment dt. 16.03.2026 page no. 24 of 24 pages