HIND FREIGHT SERVICES PVT LTD Vs. ANKIT AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two revision petitions challenge the orders dated 28.03.2011 and 21.06.2011 of the Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, 'the State Commission') in Revision Petition no. 7 of 2011 which, in turn, was directed against the order dated 30.12.2010 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum II, Hyderabad (in short, 'the District Forum') on interim application (IA) no. 198 of 2010 in Consumer Complaint no. 932 of 2010.

(2.) Ankit Agarwal, one of the petitioners (as the proprietor of Bigapple Life, Secunderabad) before us approached the District Forum with the allegation of deficiency in service against the seven opposite parties (OPs) which included M/s Hind Freight Services Pvt. Ltd., Secunderabad (OP 3 hereafter, 'HFSPL') and M/s Container Corporation of India Ltd., Hyderabad (OP 7 hereafter, 'CCIL').

(3.) The case of the complainant was that it was an importer and distributor of computers and computer parts and peripherals. It had placed order for such goods on OP 5 & 6 (M/s Cameco Technologies LLC and M/s Light Source Industries, both of the USA). Orders for transporting these goods (one container each of computers and computer parts and peripherals) from the suppliers warehouse to the Inland Container Deport ('ICD') of the Government of India, Hyderabad were placed on M/s Sea Master Shipping Company, a US Agent of M/s Mediterranean Shipping Company SA. However, OP 4 did not pick up the goods from the suppliers for a long time in spite of repeated reminders. The two containers were expected to reach ICD Hyderabad in 40 days but OPs concerned took nearly five months in delivering them at the ICD. The dispute arose primarily between the complainant and OPs 3 and 7, i.e., HFSPL and CCI regarding payment of penal charges for delayed lifting of the containers/ goods. The case of the complainant was that the delays were on account of shipping agencies and their associates in India including HFSPL, whereas both HFSPL and CCI contended that they could not release the goods unless the charges due to them were paid fully by the complainant, the consignee of the goods on production of documents.