SKH METALS LIMITED Vs. GERMAN EXPRESS SHIPPING AGENCY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) M/s. SKH Metals Limited (formerly known as M/s. MARK Auto Industries Ltd.), a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 engaged in the business of manufacturing of various types of auto parts meant for export from its factory at Gurgaon has filed this complaint against the opposite parties alleging deficiency in service on their part arising of the late delivery of an imported consignment and claiming a total compensation of Rs. 32,53,248 besides cost of litigation.

(2.) In nut shell the case of the complainant is that it had imported Tube Mills SM-11 and Tube Mill SM-12 along with accessories, parts and allied equipment from IGK Industrieguterkontor GmbH, Germany, which was to be transported to India by SIS International Speditions GmbH, Germany. The said consignment packed in 11 containers was handed over to SIS International Speditions,- GmbH, Germany on 10.2.1998 against two Bills of Lading Numbers 301/980216121-1 and 301 / 980216121-2 for its safe carriage and delivery to the complainant at ICD, Tughlakabad, New Delhi through multimodal transport. It would appear that SIS Internationale Speditions, GmbH, Germany in turn handed over the said consignment to Hapag Lloyd, against an Express.Cargo bill of the even dated 23.2.1998 for its carriage by ship to Nhava Sheva Port in India. Opposite Party No. 1 M/s. German Express Shipping Agency is the agent of Hapag Lloyd in India while opposite party No. 2 M/s. Raina Transcontinental Ltd., New Delhi is theagents of SIS InternationalSpeditions GmbH in India. The consignment was carried by Vessel Impex Emperor VNo. 828 and reached the port of destination i.e. Nhava Sheva Port in the last week of March, 1998. The complainant was duly intimated about its arrival and to make arrangement for taking delivery at ICD, Tughlakabad. As per the agreement between the complainant and the foreign suppliers, the consignment after its arrival at the Port of destination, was to be handled by O.P. No. 2 Agents of SIS Internationale for its haulage and delivery of the consignment at ICD Tughlakabad, New Delhi. On a demand being made by opposite Party No. 2, the complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,99,900 and Rs. 25,000 to opposite party No. 2 towards expenses of inland haulage. It is pertinent to note that out of the 11 containers containing the consignment, lOcontainerswerebroughttoICDTughlakabad, New Delhi by the Container Corporation of India by Rail around first week of April but the 11th container, which yas of somewhat extraordinary height and width cduld not be brought to ICD Tughlakabad by fail and therefore arrangements were made for the transportation of the 11th container by road. It took about a month time for opposite party No. 2 to make arrangement for the transportation of 11th container to ICD Tughlakabad by road as a result of which the delivery of even the 10 containers, which has arrived earlier could not be effected and the entire consignment was delivered to the complainant on 26th May, i.e. after a delay of about one month.

(3.) According to the complainant, due to the above delay in the delivery of the consignment of the imported Tube Mills, the complainant has suffered monetary loss as under: