VIRENDER KHULLAR PROPRIETOR Vs. AMERICAN CONSOLIDATION SERVICES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the facts and questions of law involved in both these original petitions are similar, we propose to deal and decide both these complaints by means of this common order.

(2.) Original Petition No. 89 of 1995 has been filed by Mr. Virender Khullar in the capacity of Sole proprietor of Babusha International against the Opposite Party/ American Consolidation Services Ltd. (For short, 'ACS') seeking a claim in the sum of Rs. 35,31,607/15P alleging deficiency in service on the part of the said opposite party under the following heads: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_86_NCDRC_2012_1.html</FRM>

(3.) The undisputed facts of the said complaint, which we may notice are that the above named complainant had entrusted a consignment of 300 cartons containing Men's wearing apparels to the opposite party vide cargo receipt numbers 34307, 24308 and 24309 dated 28.12.1994. In the said cargo receipt issued by the opposite party (ACS), the consignment was to the order of the Central Fidelity Bank, Richmond VA. USA. The ACS in turn handed over the consignment to the Hoegh Lines/ shipping line for its carriage and delivery of the consignment at the port of destination. In the Bill of Lading issued by the said shipping line, the name of the consignee was changed from the order to Coronet Group Inc. from Central Fidelity Bank beside?. there being several other changes in the name and description of the shipper as also the notified party, which was changed to Cavalier shipping company. The consignment reached the port of destination and as per the plea put forth by ACS it was taken delivery of by the consignee, Coronet Group Inc. sometimes in March, 1995 without making the payment of the price of the goods either to the complainant or to the above-named bank. The documents sent by the complainant through Syndicate Bank to the Fidelity Bank were returned unpaid. The payment of original invoices and company documents were not received from the foreign bank being not able to realize the price of the goods from the consignee through the bank the complainant has filed the complaint against the ACS. The ACS does not dispute the above referred facts but disputes its liability to make any payment of the goods to the complainant in view of certain terms and condition appearing in the cargo receipt dated 28.12.1994. It was pleaded by ACS that they acted merely as consolidated agent for the consignment in question as for other consignments under arrangement which they had with the principal Coronet Group and their obligations under the said agreement as also under the terms and conditions of the cargo receipt were limited only to arrange for the shipment of the consignment.