LAMDAA APPARELS Vs. NATVAR PARIKH INDUSTRIES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant M/s. Lamdaa Apparels booked two consignments one being 47-cartons and the other 73 cartons of garments, the first on 24.2.1994 and the second on 25.2.1994 with the 1st opposite party-Natvar Parikh Industries Pvt. Ltd. forwarding agents to be transported by Airways to Frankfurt in Germany. According to the complainant the consignments were to be delivered at Frankfurt on or before 10.3.1994. Since the 1st opposite party delayed in sending the consignments, the consignments could not be delivered to the consignee on or before 10.3.1994 as agreed but they were delivered only on 24.3.1994 and 25.3.1994 after the cancellation of the order on 18.3.1994 by the consignee/buyer who had placed the orders for delivery. Because of the cancellation of one of the orders of No.926 the complainant suffered a loss of Rs.3,22,186/-, and because of the cancellation of the other consignment of No.929 he suffered a loss of Rs.3,24,627/-. The further case of the complainant is that the said 1st opposite party and the Quick Cargo Services, the 2nd opposite party and the Singapore Airlines Ltd. , the 3rd opposite party are jointly responsible for the cancellation of the order due to the delay in delivery of the consignments and the consequential financial loss to the complainant. On these allegations the complainant has claimed compensation amounts under different heads all totalling to Rs.11,00,000/- against the 3 opposite parties.

(2.) The 1st opposite party would contend that at no point of time it was agreed that the consignments should be delivered at Frankfurt on 10.3.1994. They would further contend that the consignments were entrusted with them only on 8.3.1994 and 11.3.1994 and not earlier as stated by the complainants and there was no delay in despatching them. Therefore, they are not in any way responsible for the alleged loss of the complainant.

(3.) The contention of the 2nd opposite party in their written version is that there were no direct dealings between them and the complainant and therefore, they cannot be made liable for any alleged delay.