Back
NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION
R.C. Jain, Presiding Member and S.K. Naik, Member
E.I.C.M. EXPORT LTD. - Appellant
Versus
SOUTH INDIA CORPORATION (AGENCIES) LTD. AND ANR. - Respondents
Original Petition No. 285 of 1997
Decided on : 23-01-2012
Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Nakul Mohta, Advocate, for the Respondent
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the shipping company was liable for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service, and the court awarded a lump sum compensation to the complainant.
Headnote:
Consumer Protection Act - Deficiency in Service - Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1926 - Section 24-A - Summary of Acts and Sections: Consumer Protection Act, 1986, Section 24-A; Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1926, Clause 6, Article 3 - The court found that the complaint was not barred by limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and that the limitation period of one year under Clause 6, Article 3 of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1926, was not applicable. The court also considered the provisions of Section 24-A and held that the complaint was filed within the stipulated period of two years. The court further discussed the obligations of the shipping company under the contract of carriage and delivery, and the misleading information provided by the shipping company, which resulted in loss and injury to the complainant. The court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the complainant.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, a company engaged in the business of Import and Export of readymade garments, filed a complaint claiming compensation alleging deficiency in service on the part of the shipping lines and their agent in relation to two consignments of readymade garments. The consignments were entrusted to the shipping lines for safe carriage and delivery to the National West Minster Bank, New York, USA or to its order. The consignments reached the port of destination but were not delivered within the stipulated period, resulting in loss of credibility for the complainant. The shipping company also provided misleading information about the delivery of the consignments, causing further loss and injury to the complainant.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the complaint was not barred by limitation and that the complainant had suffered loss and injury due to the deficiency in service on the part of the shipping company. The court awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the complainant.
Issues: The issues involved in the case included the bar of limitation under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and the liability of the shipping company for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint was not barred by limitation and that the shipping company was liable for the loss and injury suffered by the complainant due to the deficiency in service. The court also considered the obligations of the shipping company under the contract of carriage and delivery, and the misleading information provided by the shipping company, which resulted in loss and injury to the complainant.
Final Decision: The court partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite parties to pay a lump sum compensation of Rs. 2,00,000 to the complainant within a specified period, failing which the amount would carry interest.
ORDER
R.C. Jain, Presiding Member - The above named complainant a company registered under the Companies' Act 1956 and engaged in the business of Import and Export of readymade garments has filed this complaint claiming a compensation of Rs. 39,81,351 alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party-Shipping Lines and their agent in relation to two consignments of readymade garments, which, the complainant and its sister-concern, East India Knitwear Company Ltd., had handed over to the opposite party No. 1 for its safe carriage and delivery to the National West Minster Bank, New York, USA or to its order. The invoice value of the first consignment was US $ 34,885.25 and that of the other was US $ 12,383.25.
2. The undisputed facts which we may notice first are that two consignments of readymade ladies and gents garments were to be supplied by the complainant to M/s. Wings Manufacturing Corporation, New York against an export order. The consignments duly packed in 38 packages and 37 packages respectively were entrusted to the opposite party No. 1 vide Bills of Lading both dated 20.1.1995 for carriage and delivery at New York Port. The name of the consignee mentioned in the Bill of Lading was National West Minster Bank and the notified party as the Wings Manufacturing Corporation. The foreign buyer to whom the goods were to be supplied had specifically asked the complainant to ensure that the goods should be delivered not later than early third week of February, 1995. However, before the consignments could be put on board, vide a fax message dated 23.1.1995, the opposite party informed the complainant that due to unfavourable weather conditions, the Vessel Kota Mawar on which the consignments were to be loaded could not be berthed at the port in time and therefore it was expected that the consignments would be loaded on another vessel 'siraj which was expected to be berthed on 25.1.1995 and sail on 28/29.1.1995 and was expected to reach the port of destination NYK Port on 25.2.1995. It is not in dispute that the consignments in fact were carried and reached the port of destination e.g. New York Port and discharged on 25.2.1995. However, the foreign buyer i.e. Wings Manufacturing Corporation refused to take delivery of the consignments on the ground that the consignments did not reach within the stipulated period i.e. early third week of February, 1995 and therefore, he could not sell them resulting into loss of credibility of his customers. The complainant had forwarded the relevant documents i.e. Bills of Lading, Invoices, etc., to the foreign Bank through its Banker-Oriental Bank of Commerce for collection of the payment against a L.C. already established with the said foreign Bank. In June, 1995, the foreign bank returned the documents without payment on the ground that the consignee refused to make the payment and retire the documents. Faced with this situation, the complainant in his bid to salvage the situation and minimize the loss found another buyer Kotru Direct, who agreed to take delivery of the consignment, subject to certain conditions. Having received this commitment from the second buyer, the complainant approached the opposite party for effecting change in the name of the consignee from the above named foreign bank to Kotru Direct . It would appear that it was at this stage that the opposite party entertained the request of the complainant and requested its counterpart in New York to do the needful. While the said request for change of the name of the consignee was pending, the opposite party informed the complainant that one of the two consignments had in fact been delivered to the consignee on 21.3.1995 while the second consignment was still available. The complainant believing this representation informed the second buyer Kotru Direct about this position who took a serious exception to this position and accused the complainant of so many unbusiness likely practices and wrong information and cance
