ORDER

Dr. S.M. Kantikar, Member.—Both the Appeals have been filed under Section 21 (a) (ii) read with Section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 challenging the Order dated 16.07.2014 passed in C.C. No. 29 of 2006 by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’) whereby the complaint was allowed and the Appellant was held liable for deficiency in service.

2.For the convenience, the Parties are referred to as their position in the Consumer Complaint No. 29 of 2006 filed before the State Commission. The facts are drawn from F.A. No. 1438 of 2014.

3.Brief facts of the case are that the Complainant/Respondent effected a consignment of sea shipment for 140 bales kasturi methi leaves and 12 cartons of spices to M/s Somya Inc., USA. On 18.11.2005, the Complainant handed over the original shipping documents in a sealed cover to M/s Trade Wings Express Couriers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Parties -1 & 3/Respondent-2”). Opposite Party-1 received the consignment from one M/s Shivex Courier & Cargo Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party-2/Appellant”) and routed the shipment documents to USA. The Opposite Party-3 entrusted the cover containing original shipping documents to DHEL Express (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party-4/Respondent-3”) and DHL Express (hereinafter referred to as the “Opposite Party-5/ Respondent-4”) for onward delivery to the addressee in USA. However, the consignee informed the Complainant that the consignment could not be lifted from the cargo section as it had not been received in time. The cover containing original shipping documents was not delivered to the addressee in time for which the Complainant took up the matter to Opposite Party-2 & 3 vide e-mail dated 13.12.2005 and 14.12.2005 respectively. When the cover could not be traced even after a lapse of 50 days, the Complainant sent a legal notice dated 19.01.2006 to call upon Opposite Parties-2 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs. 17,24,714/- for their deficiency in service. The said notice was acknowledged by the Opposite Parties.

4.Aggrieved by the alleged deficiency in services of the Opposite Parties-2 to 6 for loss of cover containing shipping documents as well as for failing to deliver the consignment in time, the Complainant filed Complaint no. 29 of 2006 filed before the State Commission praying for direction to the Opposite Parties-2 to 6 to pay a sum of Rs.17,24,714/- for the loss of goods; Rs.10,00,000/- for demurrage charges; Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for deficiency in service and Rs.10,000/- towards litigation costs.

5.The Opposite Parties contested the Complaint before the State Commission by filing their respective written statements. The Opposite Party-1 adopted the written statement filed by Opposite Party-3. The preliminary objection on maintainability was raised that since the cause of action arose at Trivandrum and not Chennai. It was commercial transaction and there was no direct relation or transaction between the Complainant and the Opposite Party-1.The Opposite party -3 denied about the knowledge of the cover containing shipping documents which was booked through its agent Opposite Party-2. In fact, Opposite Party-2 was neither a franchisee nor authorized to issue consignment note of Opposite Party-3. It was further submitted that the shipping documents neither handled by Opposite Party-1 nor received any consignment from Opposite Party-2. As the Opposite Party-2 forwarded the cover to Opposite Party-3, the same was duty fully handed over to Opposite Party- 4, 5 & 6. Therefore, Opposite Party-3 was not responsible for the alleged deficiency in service. The claim of the Complainant was highly exaggerated.As per the terms and conditions of the consignment note, in case of loss of cover, the liability of the Opposite Party-3 was restricted only up to the amount as stated in the consignment note.

6.Opposite Pa