9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hander, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from April 01, 1995 till the date of payment. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellants-complainants entrusted consignments containing men's wearing apparels in December 1994 to Respondent No. 1 American Consolidation Services Ltd., Akruti Trade Centre, 402, 4th Floor, Andheri (East), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as "ACS"), and cargo receipts were issued to them by Respondent No. 1. As per the cargo receipts so issued, the consignments were to the order of Respondent No. 2 Central Fidelity Bank, Richmond VA, USA. Respondent No. 1 on its part handed over the consignments to Respondent No. 4 M/s. Hoegh Lines, Lief Hoegh & Company, A/S Oslo, Norway/M/s. American President Lines Limited, Trade Plaza 2nd Floor, 414 Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, for delivery of the consignments at the port of destination. It is alleged that in the Bill of Lading issued by the shipping carriers, name of consignee was changed from Central Fidelity Bank to Coronet Group Inc. besides there being several other changes in the name and description of the shipper as Cavalier Shipping Company When payment was not received ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsignment to Coronet Group Inc on surrendering of all the original Bills of Lading. Lastly, it is pleaded that it is not a case of negligent act or careless handling of the shipment by Respondent No. 1. 4. After hearing the parties, the NCDRC, vide its separate orders dated January 20, 2004, accepted both the claims (to the extent of Rs. 20,82,908.40 of Appellant Virender Khullar and claim to the extent of Rs. 15,27,461.76 of Appellant Girish Chander) and directed the amount to be paid by Respondent No. 1 with interest. 5. However, above orders dated January 20, 2004, passed by NCDRC, were challenged by Respondent No. 1 in Civil Appeal Nos. 2079 of 2004 and 2080 of 2004, before this Court and the same were disposed of vide order dated September 10, 2009, as under: Heard learned Counsel for the parties. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 20th January, 2004. By that judgment, certain amount has been decreed against the Appellant. Mr. R.F. Nariman and Mr. P.H. Parekh, learned senior Counsel appearing for the Appellant, contended that the Appellant was only an agent of the consignee, Zip Code In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No. 3 to make the payment of Rs. 20,82,902.40 in favour of Appellant Virender Khullar and Rs. 15,25,461.76 in favour of Appellant Girish Chander, with interest at the rate of 12% per annum with effect from April 01, 1995. 7. Respondent No. 3 has not challenged the above order. Rather, the complainants have challenged the fresh decision of NCDRC as other Respondents are held not liable to make the payment. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, even after service of notice, have not turned up to contest the appeals. 8. Learned Counsel for the Appellants argued before us that it is Respondent No. 1 who changed the name of consignee and the name of Coronet Group Inc. was inserted in the Bill of Lading depriving realization of damages by the complainants. It is further contended that Respondent No. 1 accepted the goods from the complainants to be delivered to the order of Respondent No. 2 by engaging a carrier, but it caused the goods to be delivered to Coronet Group without getting payment realized through the bank. It is further submitted that in the cases other than Letter of Credit when the goods are sent on collection basis, the same are consigned to bank, and foreign buyer is named as party ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ding nor proof that the Appellants paid any sum for transportation or any other service to Respondent No. 1 at the time the goods were handed over to it or subsequent there to. It has been shown on behalf of Respondent No. 1 that Respondent No. 1 was simply an agent of the buyer with whom the Appellants had entered into contract. It is nobody's case that the goods were lost in transit. Rather it is a case where it has come on record that the consignment was received by Respondent No. 3 Zip Code Inc, a part of Coronet Group Inc. 12. At this stage, we think it just and proper to reproduce relevant additional terms and conditions attached with the cargo slips, which read as under: ACS undertakes to receive the goods on behalf of the consignee, hold the same as an agent and deliver or forward them to carriers or transporters in accordance with the instructions of the consignee or other cargo owners for subsequent transportation by water or air carrier and for distribution and ultimate delivery to the consignee. xxx xxx xxx In receiving the goods and pending the consolidation services covered by this agreement, ACS is acting as agent only for the consignee named on the face here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
