SUSHMA GUPTA Vs. ZIM ISTAEL NAVIGATION COMPANY LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Case of the complainant. Smt. Sushma Gupta is the sole proprietor of M/s Sakshi Exports, New Delhi. She had through M/s Airlift Carriers respondent No. 4 had entrusted 174 packages containing readymade garments to OPPOSITE PARTY, (hereinafter referred to as OP) No. 3 for carriage by sea to Budapest via Hamburg with the specific instructions that goods must reach within 90 days of the purchase of the order dated 10.11.1993 to the consignee. Despite strict instructions, OP No. 3 delivered the cargo for shipment as late as on 5.1.1994 to the shippers and the shipping company carried this consignment via Koper (Slovenia) contrary to the instructions which reached Budapest only in the 1st week of March. OP No. 3 delayed the delivery of the cargo and the shipper had not taken the shortest route to Budapest. The negligence of the opposite parties No. 1, 2 & 3 caused unpardonable delay resulting in total loss to the complainant. Accordingly, she prayed for granting following relief:

(2.) They do not have any instructions (a) to route the cargo via Hamburg to Budapest and (b) that consignment should reach Budapest on or before 10.2.1994. Further, they had advertised in advance, the date of sailing of their ships from Bombay to various ports and the routes taken by them to reach the destination. Koper is one of the destinations mentioned in the route map and from where goods can be taken by road to the destination i.e. Budapest. They have not given any guarantee about the exact date of shipping and exact date of reaching the goods at Budapest. Hence, no liability can be fastened on them. Once they had discharged the cargo without damage and intimated the consignee about its reaching the port of destination, their responsibility ceases and the responsibility of the Consignee starts. Hence, there is no deficiency of service on their part. Case of the OP No. 3

(3.) They have no privity of contract with the OP No. 4. OP No. 4 is not their agent. The consignment was delivered to them at Bombay Port by Best Carriers which was sent by the complainant/consignor. Though, it was mentioned that 174 packages were there, on counting, it was found to be only 137 packages which was brought to the notice of the consignor. On receiving the total consignment of 174 packages, the documents were corrected, and was custom cleared only in the 1st week of January. Soon after that they have ensured the loading of the cargo on the ship on which date their responsibility ceased. They were not given to understand that cargo must be routed via Hamburg to Budapest and that it should reach Budapest on or before 10.2.1994. Hence they stated that they have done their best to get all clearances for the cargo as the clearing and forwarding agents. Submissions of the Ld. counsel for the Complainant