NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. VENUS TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these appeals are being disposed of by this order as both arise out of the same order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu at Madras in O.P. No. 19 of 1992 filed by Venus Traders (who is respondent No. 1 in both the appeals).

(2.) The facts as appear from the complaint are that the complainant had an Open Marine Policy taken from the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (appellant in Appeal No. 271 /92). Two consignments each of 135 bags of turmeric of the total value of Rs. 1,60,965/- were entrusted to the Carrier, M/s. Rathi Roadways (i.e., Appellant in F.A. No. 278/92) under the Lorry Receipt No. 17576 dated 24th April, 1989 and 17671 dated 16th May, 1989 for carriage from Erode to Calcutta. Due declarations under the policy were sent to the Insurance Company. The consignee named in both the L.R.s is Canara Bank, Calcutta. The original Lorry Receipts along with other documents were sent by the consignor Venus Traders to Canara Bank in Calcutta. The ultimate buyer of the goods was Madhu Trading Co., Calcutta. The ultimate buyer had to make payments to the Canara Bank, get endorsement on the Lorry Receipts in its favour and take delivery of the goods. The consignments were taken by the Carriers to Madras and from there those were booked by railway to Shalimar which was the railway shed. As appears from the Investigation Report and was pointed out by the Insurance Company, the said consignment arrived at Shalimar on 30.6.89. The Carriers with the help of Commercial Tax Permit of Madhu Trading Co. and R/R, had taken delivery of the consignment from Shalimar and removed them to their godown. The second consignment reached Shalimar on 26th May, 1989 and the delivery was taken on the same day on completion of Commercial Tax formalities and were taken to their own godown. It appears that the Carriers subsequently delivered the consignments to the ultimate buyer without the production of the necessary endorsement from the Canara Bank, Calcutta meaning thereby that the buyer got the goods without making any payment. The Bank returned the Lorry Receipts to the consignor. The consignor asked the carriers to deliver the goods but they failed to do so. Thereupon the consignor filed a complaint before the State Commission for the recovery of Rs. 1,60,965/- from the carriers as well as from the Insurance Company.

(3.) The defence of both the respondents was similar. According to them, the consignments had reached the destination, namely, Calcutta and were taken delivery by the ultimate buyer Madhu Trading Co. and that the buyer had also issued two demand drafts in favour of the consignor complainant for Rs. 70,000/- each towards part payment of the consignment. It is on account of some dispute between the buyer and the consignor that a false complaint has been filed by the consignor.