Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

CS 58722/2016 M/s Fortune Mall Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Air Canada Pages 15/38 9.6 Hence when the consignment/statues were handed over to the defendant, the same was/were not in damaged condition and the defendant also did not object to the packaging i.e. the same was not properly packed or that it was defectively packed. Once no such objection was raised by the defendant, no noting whatsoever in this regard was made on the airway bill, the defendant cannot now agitate that the consignment was not properly packaged/packed or the damage resulted on account of defective packaging. This is more so when the defendant has failed to lead any evidence to even remotely prove that the packaging was defective. Except for the bald averments in the written statement, no evidence was led by the defendant to prove that the packaging of the consignment/statues was defective or that it was the defective packaging which resulted into damage to the consignment/statues. The averments in the written statement thus remained unsubstantiated, uncorroborated.

9.9 Though in the said letter defendant claimed that it had reviewed the handling of the shipment/consignment in question and according to it the packaging was inferior and furthermore it was the shipper's responsibility i.e. plaintiff's responsibility to have the goods/statues packaged in a manner so as to withstand transport, however, as discussed above, no objection whatsoever was raised by the defendant at the time when the consignment was handed over to it for transit. Furthermore no evidence has been led to prove that the packaging was indeed inferior or defective. The defendant's plea of defective/inferior packaging appears to be nothing but an afterthought. If there was any defect in the packaging or the consignment was not properly packed, not only the defendant would have refused to take the consignment for delivery but would have also noted the objections on the airway bill Mark C. Not doing so itself belies, falsifies the defendant's claim.

9.12 Defendant in its letter Mark E while claiming that the packaging was inferior also talked about its adherence to IATA standards regarding shipment and vide its letter Mark F, Beverly Howard Inc. asked the defendant to provide it with the copy of the standards/guidelines of IATA and also, while referring to the photographs it had provided to the defendant, it asked the defendant whether it had adhered to those standards or not. It will be worthwhile to mention that copy of IATA standards, guidelines regarding packaging have not been brought on record by the defendant. It was for the defendant to prove as to how the plaintiff/shipper failed to adhere to those standards, where the plaintiff lacked, what were the shortcomings in the packaging and that it was defective packaging which resulted in damage to the consignment/statues but the defendant has failed to prove the same.

9.22 At the same time it will be worthwhile to point out that in Mark H, though the defendant claimed that the damage was on account of improper packaging and also claimed that they are in possession of evidence to prove the same, however, no such evidence has been brought on record by the defendant. The defendant kept on agitating that the packaging was defective/improper, however, for the reasons best known to it, it failed to lead any evidence in this regard and I find absolutely no reason to believe the absolutely bald and unsubstantiated plea.