ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. M R BHINGERWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against order of District Forum-II, Institutional Area, New Delhi dated 25.9.2003 in Complaint Case No.942/2003 entitled M/s. Panvij Biotec Nigeria Ltd. V/s. National Container Line.

(2.) Appellant/complainant had filed a complaint under Sec.12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the District Forum with the grievance that respondent No.4 M/s. Panacea Biotec Limited, New Delhi had exported to Lagos a consignment of 76 boxes on 28.8.2001 through respondent No.1. The said consignment was booked to be delivered to the complainant/consignee through respondent No.2 who is a forwarding agent of respondent No.4. The respondent No.2 owed some amount to respondent No.4 as such a debit note raised by respondent No.2 in respect of the shipment charges for the consignment in question, was adjusted against the amount owed to respondent No.4 by respondent No.2 and a Bill of Lading with freight and inland Haulage charges prepaid were issued by the respondent No.2. It was however learnt later on, that the consignment in question was off-loaded at Antwerp and lodged in a warehouse and a debit note demanding a sum of Rs.95,060/- was received by respondent No.4 from respondent No.3 agent of respondent No.1 on account of freight and other charges including storage charges at Antwerp. In order to avoid deterioration of the consignment and to save further warehouse charges respondent No.4 paid up the demanded amount of Rs.95,060/- vide cheque No.86991 dated 5.2.2002 after deducting the necessary TDS charges. Thereafter a letter dated 21.2.2002 was received from respondent No.3 informing respondent No.4 that necessary instructions had been issued to the agent in Antwerp for shipment of the consignment from Antwerp to Lagos on 11.2.2002. However, the agent of respondent No.2 M/s. Jardy Shipping and Forwarding withheld the consignment on account of non-payment of their dues. The respondent No.4 received the said information through a message from M/s. Jardy Shipping and Forwarding on 16.4.2002. On instructions from respondent No.3, an amount of Euro 1707.48 was paid by the consignee/complainant to the said agents as it was revealed that respondent No.3 had not paid the full amount of the consignment charges to its agent M/s. Jardy Shipping and Forwarding in respect of the consignment in question. As such the case of the complainant before the District Forum was that there was deficiency in service on the part of respondent Nos.1 to 3 inasmuch as even after the respondent No.4/consignee of the consignment had paid the requisite charges initially (by way of adjustment to respondent No.2) for shipment of the consignment in question to Lagos, the respondent No.4/consignor was made to pay a further sum of Rs.95,060/- to respondent No.3. Thereafter the complainant was forced to pay a further amount of Euro 1707.48 to the agents of respondent No.3 i. e. , M/s. Jardy Shipping and Forwarding. Accordingly, it was prayed that respondent No.3 be directed to refund the amount of Rs.81,936/- equivalent to Euro 1707 together with interest @ 8% p. a. and compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for mental agony and harassment suffered on account of wrongful acts and omission of the said respondents.

(3.) The learned District Forum dismissed the complaint, filed by the appellant/complainant in limine on the ground that the complainant was not a consumer in terms of provisions of Sec.2 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, as the services in question had been availed of by the complainant for commercial purposes.