SHAKUMBHRI EXPORTS Vs. LEIF HEEGH AND CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant Shakumbhri Exports, is a partnership firm exporting handloom products, especially handloom rugs and handicrafts. He entered into a contract on 11.6.1994 for supply of handloom, durries and floor covering to 3rd opposite party M/s. Hayem & Co. based at Norfolk, USA for a price of US $ 39,437/-. The goods were shipped through the 2nd Opposite Party M/s. Forbes Gokak Ltd. (Padvolk Division) Bombay who is the agent in India of the 1st opposite party M/s. Leif Heegh & Co., Oslo Norway. The shipment of these handloom products was carried by vessel "Hough Cairn" covered by Bill of Lading No. 054 dated 11.6.1994. One La Salle National Bank, Chicago was shown as the consignee in the Bill of Lading. The party to be notified is M/s. Hayem & Co., the 3rd Opposite Party. The delivery of the consignment was to be made against documents, and the documents were to be released by La Salle Bank only on payment being made to the said Bank by M/s. Hayem & Co.

(2.) It is the complainant's case that when they did not receive the payment for goods shipped, they made inquiries on 1.2.1995 with the 2nd opposite party about the fate of the consignment. The 2nd opposite party, the agent, vide his fax message dated 3.2.1995 informed the complainant that the goods were released and delivered to consignee on 27.7.1994. Again 2nd opposite party confirmed this vide his fax dated 27.3.1995. However, since no payments were received, the complainant persisted with further inquiries and asked for photo-copies of the Original Bill of Lading against which the release was made. The 2nd opposite party suddenly changed his stand and vide his fax message dated 25.4.1995 now informed that the goods could not be cleared as the consignee did not surrender the Original Bill of Lading and that the goods were still lying unclaimed at the docks.

(3.) It is further averred by the complainant that when they asked for a clarification on these contradictory statements, stand taken by 2nd opposite party, the latter vide his fax message dated 26.5.1995 informed them that the consignee has declined to accept the goods/abandoned them. The 2nd opposite party also advised the complainant to find a new buyer for his goods and further added that the entire freight of US D 3,550/- apart from other costs have to be borne by the complainant. As there was no response from the 2nd opposite party to the legal notice issued by the complainant on 1.6.1995, he approached the National Commission alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties claiming reimbursement of price of goods of US $ 39,437/- (equivalent to Rs. 14,19,740) and damages of US $ 25,000 (equivalent to Rs. 9,00,000/-) in all Rs. 23,19,740/-.