NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, NEW DELHI
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member
M/s. Neetha Impex Pvt. Ltd. —Complainant
versus
DHL Worldwide Express rep. by its Company Secretary and Anr. —Opp. Parties
Consumer Case No.204 of 2002
Decided on 11.10.2018
For the Complainant:Mr. Kanhaiya Kumar, Advocate for Mr. Anil Kumar, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.1:Mr. Sandeep Narain and Ms. Anjali Agarwala, Advocates
For the Opp. Party No.2: Nemo
IMPORTANT POINT
When the goods are delivered without proper identification, it amounts to deficiency in service.
Headnote:Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 21—Complaint—The complainant which is an exporter consigned exported fabric worth Rs.31,76,195/- and sent the goods to the overseas buyer, by ship—The goods were consigned to Serif Implex Trading Company L.L.C., Dubai and were to be delivered at Kongo by O.P 1—However, the same were delivered to unknown person causing loss to the complainant—Hence, complaint was filed—Heard the counsels, perused the documents—The O.P 1 was negligent in delivering the consignment to a wrong person and hence, the opposite party is required to pay only a sum of Rs.4345/- to the complainant, along with appropriate interest—The opposite party is directed to pay the aforesaid amount to the complainant, along with simple interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the complaint till the date of payment, within three months from today.
Result: Complaint was allowed.
V.K. Jain, Presiding Member—The complainant which is an exporter consigned exported fabric worth Rs.31,76,195/- and sent the goods to the overseas buyer, by ship. The goods were consigned to Serif Implex Trading Company L.L.C., Dubai and were to be delivered at Kongo. The consignment having been financed by Union Bank of India, Hyderabad, the shipping documents were sent by Union Bank of India, Hyderabad to M/s. Overseas Marketing, bearing the address C/o, Somafri Bankque Development De MALI BP 94, Bamako in MALI through opposite party No.1 DHL Worldwide Express. The consignment instead of being delivered to Overseas Marketing was delivered to one Yattassaye. On the basis of the said documents, the goods were obtained by some unauthorized person thereby, causing loss to the complainant. Alleging negligence on the part of opposite party No.1 in rendering services to it, the complainant s before this Commission, seeking price of the consignment along with interest @ 24% per annum, amounting to Rs.15,24,576/- and compensation quantified at Rs.75,00,000/- making a total of Rs.1,22,00,000/-.
2. The complaint has been resisted by opposite party No.1, which inter-alia alleged in its written version that on the consignment i.e. the envelope containing documents reaching MALI on 06.6.2000 they admitted to deliver the same at the address mentioned on the envelope. However, the representative of Somafri Banque refused to accept the consignment as it was addressed to Overseas Marketing of which they were not aware. Earlier, two persons namely Mr. Kumar and Mr. Yattassaye claiming to be representatives of Overseas Marketing had approached Bamako, Mali Office of opposite party No.1 on 05.6.2000 with a copy of the airway bill which opposite party No.1 had issued while accepting the consignment. The said copy had been faxed by the complainant Neetha Implex. Thus two persons enquired about the consignment and informed opposite party No.1 that the said consignment had been sent for them by Mr. M. Prasad, Neetha Impex. They also showed the visiting card of Mr. Prasad as well as their own visiting cards in addition to the faxed copy of the airway bill issued by opposite party No.1to prove their bonafides and to enable opposite party No.1 to verify the fax number on the faxed copy of the airway bill with the fax number appearing on their visiting cards. Thus t wo persons again came to the office of opposite party No.1 on 06.6.2000 but the consignment had not arrived at Mali by that time. The envelope was thereafter handed over by Mali office of opposite party No.1 to Mr. Yattassaye when he visited the office of opposite party No.1 at 2.00 pm on 06.6.2000. While taking delivery he handed over a copy of the faxed airway bill to opposite party No.1. At about 3.00 pm on the same day Mr. Kumar, who had earlier come twice with Mr. Yattassaye came to the office of opposite party No.1 and enquired about the consignment. He was informed that the consignment had already been collected by Mr. Yattassaye. Mr. Kumar thereupon left the office of opposite party No.1. Thereafter, one Mr. Zoumana Diakite claiming to be Director of Overseas Marketing sent a letter to opposite party No.1 claiming that Mr. Yattassaye was not authorized by them to accept the consignment. General Manager of opposite party No.1 at Mali sent a reply to Mr. Zoumana Diakite but the same could not be served as no such person / company was found at the address given on his letter. It is further alleged that Mr. Zoumana Diakite met the General Manager of opposite party No.1 along with Mr. Kumar and admitted that Mr. Yattassaye was working with them but had escaped to Congo after cheating them. Thus according to opposite party No.1 there was no negligence on its part in rendering services. It is also claimed by opposite party No.1, without prejudice to its reply on merits, that its liability under the said airway bill is limited and cannot exceed 100 US $.
3. When this complaint came up