SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, President &
Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member
MALTI EXPORTS—Appellant
versus
NATVAR PARIKH INDUSTRIES LTD. & ANR.—Opposite Parties
Original Petition No. 92 of 1997—Decided on 18.3.2005

Advocates:
Counsel For the Party :
For the Complainant :Mr. Kamal Mehta, Advocate.
For the Opposite Parties :Mr. K.K. Rai, Advocate.

The carrier's liability as an insurer under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, and the entitlement of the complainant to damages as per the Act's provisions.

Headnote:

Breach of Contract - Carriage of Goods by Sea - Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 - Section 9 - Article 3 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925

Fact of the Case:

The complainant, engaged in the business of manufacturing and export of carpets, alleged that the opposite party wrongfully delivered a consignment to the foreign buyer without the production of original documents and without obtaining a Bank guarantee, leading to a loss of Rs. 22,31,485.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the goods were delivered without the original bill of lading, and the carrier was liable as an insurer under Section 9 of the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925.

Issues: The issues involved non-delivery of goods against the terms of the bill of lading, liability of the carrier, and the quantum of damages.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the carrier's liability was that of an insurer under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, and the complainant was entitled to damages as per the Act's provisions.

Final Decision: The complaint was allowed, and the opposite parties were directed to pay the complainant Rs. 14,61,850 with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint, along with costs assessed at Rs. 10,000.

ORDER

Mr. Justice M.B. Shah, President—It is the say of the complainant that it is doing business in the name and style of Malti Exports and is engaged in the business of manufacturing, sale and export of carpets and allied items. Opposite party No. 1 is engaged in the business of clearing, forwarding and shipping agents and inter alia engaged in the business of providing services for transportation of goods by sea. Opposite party No. 1 is the agent of opposite party No. 2, namely, Natpar Lines.

2. It is submitted that one Rossweiner Teppichfabrik Traugott Bauch GmbH, Germany, had placed an order on the complainant for purchase of carpets. The buyer specifically stipulated shipment through the opposite party in its order. Thereafter, the complainant paid ocean freight amounting to Rs. 51,328/- for shipment of the consignment for which a receipt dated October 4, 1996 was issued by the opposite party. Ocean bill of lading is dated 4.10.1996.

3. The bill of lading specifically provides: Consignee—Unto Order; Notify party — Rossweiner Teppichfabrik Traugott Bauch GmbH, Germany; Marks and Numbers: ME/RT/Harmburg, 3822/3965; No. of Pkgs. Or Shipping Units : 144 Rolls; Description of Goods and Pkgs.: Indian Handknitted Woollen Carpets (1719.89 sq. mts.) (1728 Pcs); Gross Weight: Gr. Wt. 7945.00, Net Wt. 7657.00.

4. It was also agreed that the delivery of the said consignment to the foreign buyer was to be made after negotiation of document through the Bank. The complainant’s Bank is State Bank of India, Bhadhoi and the purchaser’s Bank is Volksbank Ochtrup eG, Germany. As per the terms and conditions the foreign buyers could only take delivery of the consignment by presenting the original bill of lading which the foreign buyer was to obtain from its foreign Bank after furnishing the Bank guarantee in the sum of DM 58,474.56 being the value of the said consignment.

5. It has been pointed out that as per the terms of bill of lading which was a document of title, it was made clear that the goods were to be delivered to the order of the consignee subject to his making the payment or providing a Bank guarantee by way of negotiations with the Bank, namely, Volksbank Ochtrup eG, Germany.

6. It is alleged that in breach of the said condition, the opposite party wrongfully delivered the consignment to the foreign buyer without the production of original documents and the foreign buyer had not given any Bank guarantee or made any payment in respect of the consignment.

7. Thereafter opposite party No. 1 by its communication dated November 20, 1996 alleged that the consignment in question has been delivered to the buyers against original bill of lading. However, complainant again received a copy of the communication dated November 26, 1996 from the foreign Bank to its banker that foreign Bank was still holding all documents including the original bill of lading.

8. In this view of the matter, the complainant by its letters dated 28th and 29th November, 1996 called upon the opposite party No. 1 to confirm the delivery status of the consignment. There was no response from the opposite party. Hence, legal notice dated 3rd December, 1996 was given.

9. It is contended that because of the wrongful delivery of the consignment in breach of the condition and without obtaining the original bill of lading, opposite party No. 1 acted negligently and, therefore, they are liable to pay the loss suffered by the complainant. It is stated that consignment was worth DM 58,474.56 and the same in Indian Rupees works out to Rs. 14,61,850/-. It is, therefore, prayed that opposite parties are liable to pay the said amount with interest and damage, in all, Rs. 22,31,485/- with interest @ 18% p.a.:

Evidence in support:

(a) The ocean bill of lading dated 4.10.1996 is produced on record wherein there is a specific condition—”If required by the Carrier one (1) original bill of lading must be surrendered duly endorsed in exchange for the goods or delivery orders”. It is signed on beh




































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top