Back
2020 Supreme(Mad) 939
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
M/s. Shree Exports Rep. by its Partner Rohit Kayan – Appellant
Versus
Container Corporation of India Limited – Respondent
A.S. No. 6 of 2014
Decided On : 03-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Hari Radhakrishnan.
For the Respondents: V.G. Suresh Kumar, A.P. Srinivas.
Headnote:
Civil Procedure Code, 1950 - Section 96 - Rule 1 - Order 41 - Customs Act - Section 150 - Compensation of mental agony - Electronic auction sale - Lead King Sea Forwarders Private Limited Chennai – However goods could not be shipped because Foreign Buyer had sent letter of credit in name of their agents who in turn started dictating unacceptable terms and conditions to plaintiff and thereby shipment was delayed and in meanwhile letter of credit date had also expired and left with no other alternative goods were unloaded at Container Freight Station operated by first defendant – Thereafter issue had been taken up by plaintiff with foreign buyer however there was no response – Held, As regards claim of damages head of mental agony when first defendant is found to be not party at fault as such and it is only plaintiff who had failed to clear goods from first defendant at earliest point time despite its failure to forward goods to foreign purchaser and plaintiff having not endeavored to clear goods even after obtainment of Objection Certificate and one year thereafter only plaintiff had sent communication to first defendant with reference to same and in meanwhile when goods are found to be e-auctioned and no doubt auction sale is an invalid sale without notice to plaintiff Section Customs Act however fact remains that for months together plaintiff has remained idle and not taken any positive steps to clear goods from first defendant and in such view of matter in my considered opinion as determined by trial Court plaintiff cannot be allowed to claim any damages head of mental agony as it is found that plaintiff is party who liable to be blamed for non clearance of goods from first defendant at earliest point of time - Therefore plaintiff being faulting party qua non clearance of goods at earliest point of time in such view of matter plaintiff cannot be granted any compensation on premise that it had suffered mental agony with reference to clearance of goods from first defendant - Furthermore as by trial Court on what factors plaintiff has suffered mental agony for claiming damages of sum of details had been spelt out in plaint and in absence of evidence on part of plaintiff pointing same and therefore trial Court is justified in coming to conclusion that on account of failure plaintiff to determine loss sustained by it as such no relief could be granted to plaintiff – Appeal allowed
JUDGMENT :
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Prayer: First Appeal has been filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of The Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2013 passed in O.S. No. 558 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore.
1. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2013 passed in O.S. No. 558 of 2007 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Court, Coimbatore, the plaintiff has preferred the first appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.
3. Suit for recovery of money.
4. The plaintiff is the manufacturer and exporter of Hosiery products and exporting the same to the Western and European countries based on the orders placed by the foreign buyers and based on the purchase order from Jordin Sportwear of United States of America, the plaintiff vide invoice dated 23.05.2004 sent the goods being 7104 pieces of 100% cotton knitted Men's T-Shirts packed in 296 Cartons at an Invoice value of USD23443.20 and the same was assigned shipping Bill No. 1884 dated 06.08.2004 by the second defendant and the goods were to be shipped from the Port of Tuticorin, however, as there was no connecting Vessel at that point of time, the goods were sent to Chennai Port and the goods were handled by Clearing and Forwarding Agents M/s. Lead King Sea Forwarders Private Limited, Chennai. However, the goods could not be shipped because the Foreign Buyer had sent the letter of credit in the name of their agents, who in turn started dictating unacceptable terms and conditions to the plaintiff and thereby, the shipment was delayed and in the meanwhile, the letter of credit date had also expired and left with no other alternative, the goods were unloaded at the Container Freight Station operated by the first defendant on 14.08.2004. Thereafter, the issue had been taken up by the plaintiff with the foreign buyer, however, there was no response. All the efforts and pains taken by the plaintiff failed and the goods were stranded at the CFS of the first defendant. The plaintiff explored the various alternative ways to dispose the goods but they ended in vain. The plaintiff had also taken reasonable steps to protect his interest and endeavour to bring the goods back to Tirupur from CFS of the first defendant and thereby, requested the second defendant to issue No Objection Certificate with reference to the same vide letter dated 14.03.2005. The second defendant issued No Objection Certificate vide letter dated 08.04.2005. However, on account of business of the plaintiff being affected badly, the plaintiff was concentrating on the same. The plaintiff sent the communication dated 28.08.2006 to the Clearing and Forwarding Agents to ascertain the demurrage and other charges to get back the goods from the CFS of the first defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff on the ascertainment of the approximate charges to be paid sent a letter dated 12.09.2006 to the first defendant requesting for the return of the stored goods and also enclosed No Objection Certificate issued by the second defendant. However, to the shock and surprise of the plaintiff, the first defendant vide letter dated 13.09.2006 informed that the subject export goods were sold in auction on 07.04.2006 to the highest bidder in the electronic auction sale. The action of the first defendant in selling the goods through auction is illegal and without authority and the illegal act of the first defendant was informed to the second defendant vide letter dated 03.10.2006. However, no reply was received from the second defendant with reference to the same. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a legal notice on 18.01.2007 to the first defendant and called upon them to pay the value of the goods within 10 days and also compensation of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the mental agony and the first defendant, despite the receipt of the same, did not respond to the same and also made no payment and t
