Thiru Justice E.J. Bellie, President—The complainants are Fineskin Leathers and Supplies Company Private Limited, which is carrying on business. In the course of their business they imported from India Chamois Leather in four consignments to be carried in ships. The ships arrived at Cranbourne, Victoria, Australia on 6.1.1994, 10.2.1994 and 22.2.1994. The cargoes were carried in closed containers. The goods were insured with the opposite party and they were covered for all risks including risk for damage, shortage, etc. The cargo after reaching the port of destination were examined and were found to be in mouldy condition and was certified to be a total loss and therefore they were rejected as per local laws. Thereafter the complainant lodged a claim with the opposite party under the terms and conditions of contract of insurance and claimed the insured value of the goods. The opposite party appointed their Surveyors M/s. Basheer and Associates, who by their report dated 25.8.1994 certified that the damage would have occurred due to the sweating of the product in the cartons and the subject package did not have any evidence of water contact and the surface externally, and the internal surface of the polythene sheets which were used as lining folded over the goods were found with water droplets. In their final conclusion the Surveyors have stated that the cause of damage must have been due to the characteristic quality of the material to absorb moisture as the packaging was found to have been carried out in the high humidity air which would have been trapped between layers of leather and might have condensed during the transit from Madras to Australia and due to the characteristic of the chamois leather moisture would have been absorbed and sustained chromophoric moulds on the surface due to the presence of micro organisms in the air and that has resulted in the damage to the cargo. On the basis of this report the opposite party rejected the claim on the ground of inherent vice. According to the complainant the reasoning given by the Surveyors was untenable as chamois leather has a tendency to absorb moisture. It is further according to the complainant that during the period of transit of the cargo the temperature at Singapore was usually in excess of 32/35 degree Celsius which would mean that the temperature inside the container would have been about 60/ 65 degree Celsius. The huge rise in temperature 1and the humidity conditions in Singapore might have triggered the combination of humidity and temperature and this humidity and rise in temperature should have caused condensation of the moisture into droplets. Even if chamois leather is stored wet it would dry up without developing any fungus or mould whatsoever. Thus chamois leather does not suffer from inherent vice. The complainants submit that the loss complained of is clearly covered by the policies issued and the opposite party is liable to make good the loss and has no defence to the claim in question. The complainants have estimated the loss in the aggregate at US $ 50905.26. According to the complainants they are entitled to claim from the opposite party the said amount and also interest @ 24% p.a. They are further entitled for compensation. On these grounds the complaint has been filed.

2. The opposite party would contend that the complainant Company is situate in a foreign land and hence this complaint is not competent by them. It is further contended that the shipments were insured by Fine Skin Leathers & Supplies (India) Private Limited, 48, G.S.T. Road, Chromepet, Chennai : 44 and as such there is no privity of contract between the complainant Company and the opposite party. The complainants had notified the Survey and Claim Settling Agents about the damage who in turn appointed Australian Claim Settling Services Private Limited, Marine Surveyors and Loss Assessors who issued their survey reports dated 11.4.1994 and the opposite parties have also appointed thei