BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD (ADDITIONAL BENCH)

FA. No.489/2019 AGAINST ORDERS IN CC. No.221/2017 ON THE FILE OF DISTRICT FORUM-II, HYDERABAD Between :-

Global Agri Resources Private Ltd., Rep. by its Director Govind Agarwal, Having its registered office at #15-1-521/1, Jagadish Nivas, Old Feelkhana Hyderabad, Presently Plot No.8(8A-8B), Upper ground floor (Unit No.UG3), Dev Dhanuka Prestige Road No.12, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad-500034.

…..Appellant/Complainant And SS LOGISTICS, Rep, by its Authorized Signatory, Flat No.304-A, 3^rd Floor, Diamond Towers, Beside Belsons Taj Mahal Hotel, Sarojini devi Road, Secunderabad – 500003.

…Respondent/Opposite party.

Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant : M/s. KRR Associates K.Rajeshwar Rao.

Counsel for the Respondent/Opposite party : Sri. MRB Manikandan QUORUM: Hon’ble Sri K.RangaRao - Presiding Officer-

Member- (Judicial).

&

Hon’ble Sri V.V.SESHUBABU- Member ( Judicial).

TUESDAY, THE 17^th DAY OF FEBRUARY, TWO THOUSAND TWENTY SIX *****

Order : (Per Hon’ble Sri K.RangaRao- Presiding Officer-

Member - (Judicial).

1. This appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant U/s.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this State Commission to set aside the impugned order dt.22.07.2019 passed in CC. No. 221/2019 of the District Forum-II, Hyderabad, and consequently to allow the appeal as prayed for.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the complaint. The Appellant herein was complainant and the Respondent were opposite party in the CC. No. 221/2017 before the District Forum-II, Hyderabad.

3. The brief averments of complaint are as follows:-

The complainant submits that his company is involved in the business of exports of Palmitic acid for the last 3 years and he is doing the business in the domestic and international areas.

In January 2016, he approached the opposite party for a quotation to export cargo shipment to be delivered at United States of America. After due consultation and negotiations, as per the advice of the opposite party the amount was fixed for a total of 2076 USD$ per container. Accordingly he made the payment vide bill dated 17-01-2017.

After that shipment reached its destination, the complainant received an invoice from the counter part of the opposite party i.e., Swift Freight (USA) Inc [Los Angles) demanding an amount of USD$ 5095 for release of material. It is his contention that all amounts were paid to the opposite party as per their quote. During negotiations it was fixed at USD$ 400 as DDC amount but once the shipment reached the destination the demand increased by 435 USD$ per container. Although several communications were made by him, the opposite party has failed to sort out the issue and have informed him that for the shipment GRI (General Rate Increase) was applicable and the complainant ought to pay the amounts demanded.

The GRI (General Rate Increase) ought to have been included by the opposite party at the time of collecting the bill and not after the shipment reached the destination. Owing to this the complainant is constrained to make the payment as per the demands of the counter part of the opposite party under and recourse to take appropriate legal measures.

Despite paying the additional charges demanded by the opposite party on 01-03-2017, their counterpart Swift Freight (USA) Inc. failed to release the freight immediately and for the delay of four containers he was charged heavily for demurrage. For the illegal acts of the opposite party and their counterpart, he issued legal notice on 22-03-2017 calling upon the opposite party to pay a sum of USD$ 2610 as against a total of USD$ 5095 paid by the complainant to the counter part of the opposite party. He claims he sent an email on 06-01-2017 cancelling the booking but the opposite party assured him of the charges as given under;

Line : MSC-Line Freight : USD 2076 (FRT 1676 + including DDC400)

ACD : USD 25+ S TAX but have gone back on thei