The main legal point established in the judgment is the jurisdiction of the Consumer Fora in India to deal with the dispute and the maintainability of the complaint against the agent and the principal under the Indian Contract Act.

ORDER

M.B. Shah, President - The complainant M/s. Shakumbhri Exports is an exporter of handloom and handicraft goods from India to several countries. In course of its business, the firm received purchase order from opposite party (OP) No. 3 (M/s. Hayim and Co.) in September 1994 for the sale and supply of 100% cotton handloom durries and 100% cotton handloom Chindi durries and floor coverings, all coloured and woven (in short, the "goods ).

2. The complainant sent the requisite goods to OP No. 3, the purchaser, against the documents drawn by its Bank in favour of the LaSalle National Bank, International Banking Division, Chicago, USA, which was nominated as the consignee and the collecting Bank acting on behalf of OP No. 3. The consigned goods were to be delivered against documents, which were to be released by the LaSalle Bank, only on payment being made to the said Bank by OP No. 3. The freight was payable at the destination by OP No. 3 and the goods were to be sent by sea.

3. The goods were sent by a vessel owned/controlled by OP No. 1, M/s. Leigh Hoegh and Co. It is pointed out that the relevant consignments were despatched against the following invoices and bills of lading:

Date Invoice No. Bill of lading No. and date Vessel Value in US $

29.8.1994 675 031 dated 29.8.1994 HOEGH DYKE 53,660.40

678 do.

29.8.1994 676 038 dated 29.8.1994 do. 45,745.20

39.8.1994 677 037 dated 11.6.1994 do.

Total US $ 1,37,817.60

i.e., Rs. 50,71,687.68

4. The bills of lading confirming that the goods were shipped on board were issued by the Master of the Vessel ("Hoegh Dyke") owned and/or controlled by OP No. 1 which is a company registered under the Laws of Norway while OP No. 2 is the Agent of OP No. 1 in India.

5. As the complainant did not receive the payment for the aforesaid consignments of the goods, it addressed several communications to OP No. 2 (as well as OP No. 1) asking for the status of the consignments. OP No. 2 also, in turn, sent various communications to the complainant.

6. The payment was not released in spite of prolonged correspondence and hence the complainant filed this complaint before this Commission on 18th November, 1995 for recovering a sum of Rs. 50,71,687.68 towards the price of the goods and Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation, i.e. in all, Rs. 55,71,687.68.

7. After receipt of notice in these proceedings, the complainant as well as OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written versions and written submissions. The latter contended that the consignments, covered by the three relevant bills of lading, were released to the purchaser, OP No. 3, along with several other consign-ments, on the basis of the complainant's letter (fax) dated 21st October, 1994. There was no reason for OP Nos. 1 and 2 to doubt the authenticity of the complainant's said communication because, on earlier occasions too, the complainant had sent such communications. After the delivery of the goods to the purchaser, for the first time, on 1.2.1995, the complainant made an inquiry about its shipments. Immediately, on 3rd February, 1995, the complainant was informed about its delivery. Thereafter, only on 24th March, 1995 the complainant sought information whether the goods were delivered after receiving the original bills of lading. In response, OP No. 2 informed the complainant on 27th March, 1995 that while the goods covered by the bills of lading Nos. 20 and 33 were handed over to OP No. 3 against the original bills of lading, the goods under the bills of lading Nos. 31 and 37 and 38 were released as per the letter of authority of the complainant against consignee's corporate guarantee. There was no reason for them (OP No. 1) to doubt that the (complainant's) authority letter was fabricated.

8. It was further contended by OP Nos. 1 and 2 that there was no privity of contract between the complainant and OP No. 1 (Shipper); that the freight was payable at the destination by OP No. 3, and, therefore, the complainant was not a consumer vis-a-vis OP No.