State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
M/S. Durgas Grr & Co., vs 1. M/S. Nautical Cargo P. Ltd., on 28 November, 2022
BEFORE THE TELANGANA STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES
REDRESSAL COMMISSION: HYDERABAD.
CC.NO.157 OF 2019
Between:
M/s DURGAS GRR & CO
Rep by its authorized Signatory
Mr. M.D.V. Satish, S/o. Gangadharam,
43 years, R/o 89/A, Phase-I,
IDA, Jeedimetla,
Hyderabad-500055. Complainant
And
1. M/s Nautical Cargo (P) Ltd.,
Rep by its Branch Manager
Mrs. Rina Chandran,
CC59/801A, Elizabeth Memorial Bldg,
II Floor, Thevara Ferry Junction,
Cochin-682 013.
2. M/s HTL Logistics India Private Ltd.,
Rep by its Manager- Ocean Imports,
Mr. Sandeep G. Pingle,
205/206/207 K. P. Arum,
K.P. Engineering Compound,
Marol, Maroshi Road, Marol,
Andheri (East) Mumbai-400053. ....Opposite Parties
Counsel for the Complainant M/s. Y. Krishna Mohan Rao &
Y.Shailaja Kumari
Counsel for the Opposite Parties :Sri S. ChalpathiRao -Opl
Sri K. Yadagiri Reddy -
Op2
QUORUM: HON'BLE SRI v.v.SESHUBABU, MEMBER
HON'BLE SMT R.S. RAJESHREE, MEMBER MONDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND TWENTY TWo k****** (Per Hon'ble Sri V.v. Seshubabu Member - Judicial) Order
1. This is a complaint filed by the Complainant under Section 17 (1) a (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, praying this Commission to direct the Opposite Parties:
To pay Rs.3,01,190/- towards additional detention charges and Rs.25,00,000/- towards compensation, loss of orders, and Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses in total 18% p.a. from the date of Rs.28,51,190/- with interest @ the date of realization in the filing of the complaint, till interest of justice.
2.The brief facts of the case are as follows:
A).The complainant purchased Glass Fiber reinforced plastic coils from Germany and the material was packed in a container for transporting by sea through Opposite Party No.2 on 08.03.2019 which is expected to arrive at Nhava Sheva, Navi Mumbai on 14.04.2019; That in the meanwhile, the complainant engaged Opposite Party No.1 on 05.04.2019 to clear the goods from Seaport from Customs Department with the documents received from the supplier; That 10.04.2019 Opposite Party No.1 submitted a quotation with the rates for clearing the goods from customs duly mentioning relevant formalities like, destuffing the container after un-loading the goods at the complainant's premises to return the container to the Opposite Party No.2 within time and the quotation was accepted by the complainant; That on 13.04.2019 itself the container reached the port and the time of 14 days will be available to clear the Cargo and to dyestuff the container and to sent back the same to the Opposite Party No.2 i.e., from 13.04.2019 to 26.04.2019;
B). That the complainant forwarded all relevant documents to Opposite Party No.1 on 17.04.2019 and on 18.04.2019 complainant received a check list of custom duty calculation for confirmation and sent back the same to Opposite Party No.1 within no time That immediately Opposite Party No.1 sent e-mail forwarding the original documents through courier to their Mumbai Office; That on 18.04.2019 at 4-15 p.m., complainant received the mail and as 19.04.2019 happened to be GOOD FRIDAY, the documents were sent by courier to the Opposite Party No.1 on 20.04.2019 and docket copy was also sent by e-mail; That on 22.04.2019 Opposite Party No.1 sent an e-mail at 7-00 p.m., asking for additional documents for the first time import authorization letters; That on 20.03.2019 scanned copies of letters was sent by courier to Opposite Party No.1; so also docket copy by 3 e-mail; that on 24.04.2019 complainant received mail from Opposite Party No.1 to settle freight forward charges at Rs.5,900/ to Opposite Party No.2 and payment was raised through Opposite Party No.1 for making payment to Opposite Party No.2;
C). That when Opposite Party No.1 approached the Opposite Party No.2 to raise invoice for shipping liner charges it was raised for Rs.44,225/, on 25.04.2019 even though Opposite Party No.2 was expected to raise the same on 09.04.2019 itself and the delay in raising the invoice on 25.04.2019 shows negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2, and with a malafide intention to collect That the huge demurrage charges the invoice is belatedly raise; principle logistics "HAPAG-LLOYD", has confirmed the delay and That the free time negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2; liner charges was to be expired on 26.04.2019; That due to continuous holidays from 27.04.2019 to 29.04.2019 no action was taken by both opposite parties; hat on 30.04.2019 Opposite Party No.l suggested to send an indemnity bond infavour of liner (HAPAG-LLOYD), and accordingly it was prepared by complainant and sent by e-mail besides the original copy in courier; That 01.05.2019 happened to be holiday and Opposite Party No.1 received the delivery order at 3-30 p.m., on 02.05.2019, and due to the hap hazardous manner in which Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 dealt with the matter delay of 6 days occurred for which opposite parties are solely responsible; That Opposite Party No.2 raised invoice on 04.05.2019 towards demurrage charges for the liner up to 08.05.2019 at Rs. 1,58,295/- for no fault on the part of complainant and it shows Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 to grab the money calculated the demurrage charges up to 08.05.2019, on 04.05.2019 itself; That on 30.05.2019 at 11-46 a.m., Opposite Party No.2 sent a mail expressing deep regrets for the inconvenience caused to the complainant from sent another mail on 08.06.2019 at 11-11 p.m., giving details of sequence of events and it shows the deficiency in service on the part of Opposite Party No.2 in consonance with Opposite Party No.1; That after payment of detention charges both the opposite parties not initiated any action to get the container cleared from the customs and Opposite Party No.1 not even informed the customs duty payable on the 4 was raised to pav 10.05.2019 another invoice That on charges at Rs.62,312/ HOods till 11.05,2019, CFS demurrager oharges Rs.80, 172/- and were 13,05.2019 at to 4nd demurrage charges up delivery order Opposite 15.05.2019 Party No. 1 got pald, That on of complainant container reached the premises Irom liner, and the and empty and it w a s destuffed later al Jeedinmetla on 17.05.2019, Mumbai on 19.05.2019;
conlainer reached the container yard at without receiving the empty container That Opposite Party No.2 there till then, even thought started demanding demurrage charges That on 07.06.2019 a WAS no fault on the part of the complainant;
for which a reply legal notice was issued to the opposite parties untenable notice dated 21.06.2019 was given with false and recitals; hence, the complaint.
3. The Written verslon of opposite party No.1 are that:
A). The complaint is not maintainable either on facts or at the is to strict proof of all the Law That complainant put averments made in the complaint except those that are admitted;
That this Commission docsn't have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as against Opposite Party No.1 since it doesn't reside, carry on business, or work for gain and doesn't have any branch within the limits of this Commission; That there is no cause of action within the limitation of this Commission; That the delivery of consignment at the premises of the complainant will not give raise to any cause of action atleast against Opposite Party No.1; That the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable to the facts of the case and there is no consumer and service provider relationship between complainant and Opposite Party No.1; That there is no privity of contract between complainant and Opposite Party No. 1; That the complainant imported the goods for commercial purpose as such, it will not fal under the definition of consumer; That Opposite Party No.1 is not liable for the actions or omissions if any, of the Opposite Party No.2 which is separate, independent and distinct; That the contract of affreightment evidenced by way of bill of lading to issued by the carrier but not Opposite Party No. 1;
B). Admittedly, the vessel reached Mumbai port, on 13.04.2019 and the liner payment was effected on 25.04.2019, just two days prior to the free time payment, That a sum of Rs.3,01,190/- was paid by the complainant directly to the Opposite Party No.2, only on 24.04.2019 and so complainant has no right to allege any delay on the part of Opposite Party No.1; That Opposite Party No.1 is not responsible for any delay caused due to the negligence on the part of Opposite Party No.2 or due to the continuous holidays from 27.04.2019 to 29.04.2019; That the Opposite Party No.1 always performed its duties in a diligent manner and there is no deficiency in service at any stage;, That there was no pre-plan on the part of Opposite Party No.1 as alleged to grab money from complainant; That the mail correspondence dated 30.05.2019 and 08.06.2019 is no way connected to Opposite Party No.1, and it will not bind the Opposite Party No.1; That Opposite Party No.1 is the not liable for the demurrage charges, CFS charges paid by the complainant; That the legal notice issued on behalf of the complainant was suitably replied specifically; That the non-payment of demurrage charges that 18.05.2019 and 19.05.2019 by the complainant shows committing clear breach of the legal and contractual obligation; That various claims made under the complaint have no basis at all and Opposite Party No.1 didn't pay anything, With pleas requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.
4. The Written version of opposite party No.2 are that:
A). The complaint is not maintainable either on facts or at Law; That the complainant is put to strict proof of all the averments made in the complaint except those that are admitted;
That this Commission doesn't have jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as against Opposite Party No.2 since it doesn't reside, carry on business, or work for gain and doesn't have any branch within the limits of this Commission; That there is no cause of action within the limitation of this Commission; That the delivery of consignment at the premises of the complainant will not give raise to any cause of action atleast against Opposite Party No.2; That the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is not applicable to the facts of the case and there is no consumer and service provider 6 relationship between complainant and Opposite Party No.2; That there is no privity of contract between complainant and Opposite Party No.2; That the complainant imported the goods for commercial purpose as such, it will not fall under the definition of consumer; That Opposite Party No.2 is not liable for the actions or omissions if any, of the Opposite Party No.1 which is separate, independent and distinct;
B). The complainant is a first time
importer and has no
knowledge about the business practices by sea; That the complaint could have filed against M/s. Nautical Cargo (Pvt.) Ltd., whom the complainant appointed as Custom House clearing Agent (CHA) respect to Cargo after it arrival to NHAVA SHEVA and Opposite Party No.2 has no relationship whatsoever with complainant; That Opposite Party No.1 is the sub-agent of Unicorn Shipping and Logistics, Mumbai which is a necessary party to the so the complaint is bad for complaint and non-joinder of necessary party; That the Cargo ordered by the complainant was supplied by one Lamix Composites GMBH and the said supplier appointed one Gateway Cargo Systems GMBH as a booking agent at the port of origin in Germany; That being the agent of said Overseas booking agents Opposite Party No.2 had a limited role of releasing of delivery order upon receipt of payment as per common trade practice; That the complainant failed to prepare all necessary documents within required time which led to the delays in Custom Clearance of the Cargo and Registration procedure etc., and the complainant attempting to take advantage of his wrongs by throwing blame on the opposite parties; That 26.03.2019 itself in advance the arrival date of Cargo was informed to complainant; That the customs authorities completed the inspection and gave their clearance on 09.05.2019 itself; That further more there were various previously notified public holidays in between 13.04.2019 and 19.05.2019;
That on 10.05.2019 Opposite Party No.1 confirmed the duty payable as reflected in the system pending online payment and it was paid only on 13.05.2019 and so complainant can't blame anybody except himself; That on 15.05.2019 the container was cleared and dispatched, which reached the warehouse of complainant on 17.05.2019; That after unloading it was 1 dispatched back to NHAVA AND SHEVA on 19.05.2019; That it is known to one and all that unless the container is cleaned no carrier would receive the same and till the receipt demurrage charges will be collected from the buyer; That as the complainant not paid such amounts they were forced to do so; That the various payments made by complainant would go to the respective authorities like, Customs and liner etc., and it will no way credit into the account of Opposite Party No.2; That various claims made That the only duty of by the complainant are not maintainable; the Opposite Party No.2 is to release the Cargo after receiving the the claims payment for which cannot be made liable to answer with these pleas requested to dismiss the complaint with costs.
5. The complainant has filed evidence affidavit and got marked Ex.Al to A16, and on behalf of the Opposite party No.1 Mr.P.S.Selvaraj, General Manager of M/s. Nautical Caro Pvt. Ltd., filed evidence affidavit of Pw1, Mr. Mahadev V. Jethe the authorized signatory of Opposite Party No.2 filed evidence affidavit and got marked Exs.B1 to B26. Written arguments filed for the complainant, Opposite Party No.1 and Opposite Party No.2
6. Points for determination are:
1. Whether this State Commission is having territorial jurisdiction ?
2. Whether the complainant comes within the ambit of definition of consumer ?
3. Whether the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e., Unicorn Shipping and Logistics, Mumbai ?
4. Whether there is deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Party Nos.1 &2?
5. Whether the complainant is entitled for the relief as claimed ?
6. Relief ?
7. Point No.1: It is the contention of the opposite parties that their Registered Offices or Branch Offices are not situated within the territorial limits of this State Commission, as such this Commission is not having jurisdiction to decide the case. Section -
17 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 deals with the 8 section 17 (2) (c ) if jurisdiction of the State Commission. As per the complaint can be any cause of action arises wholly or in part, filed in that place; Admittedly, the Opposite Party No.2 handedover the goods to the complainant in its premises at Hyderabad. Therefore, this Commission is having jurisdiction to decide the complaint. However, Opposite Party No.1 is no way connected with the delivery of goods by Opposite Party No.2 at Hyderabad. Admittedly, the cause of action against Opposite Party No. 1 & Opposite Party No.2 is distinct and separate. The complainant engaged the Opposite Party No.1 to get the goods released at Mumbai Port after getting clearance from the customs authorities. It means Opposite Party No.1 is no way connected for the delivery of goods at Hyderabad. No document is filed to show that Opposite Party No.1 given any acquiesces for the institution of complaint in this Commission. No permission was obtained from State Commission, to file the complaint against Opposite Party No.1 at Hyderabad. So we are of the view that this State Commission is not having territorial jurisdiction to decide the complaint against Opposite Party No.1. Accordingly, the point is answered.
8. Point No.2: It is important to note that no way in the complaint it is pleaded that for his "livelihood" the complainant conducted the business by purchasing the Glass fiber re-inforced plastic coils from Germany; Section-2 (vi) (d) (i) &
(i) the C.P. Act, 1986 goes to show that a consumer doesn't include a person who avails obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; It shows complainant purchased the goods herein for commercial usage only; In para-18 of the complaint which relates to relief portion it is submitted that "to pay Rs.3,01,190/- towards additional detention charges, Rs.25,00,000/ towards compensation, loss of orders and Rs.50,000/- towards legal expenses.... Ex.A10 is the legal notice dated
07.06.2019 issued by complainant to the Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2. At Page-2 it is mentioned that "my client imported the consignment on certain economic considerations and my client planning was completely failed. This delay has caused in losing a prestigious order, and the commercial business, dynamics were completely 9 changed because of penalized clear enough to conclude costing." The above recitals are that the transaction in the case is commercial ramifications i.e., it is having purely is a commercial purpose.
Therefore, the point is answered against the complainant.
9. Point No.3: It is the contention of Opposite Party No.2 in the written version that one Unicorn Shipping &s Logistics (Mumbai) is the Sub-agent of Opposite Party No. 1 and both are necessary parties to the complaint, as they have direct contractual relation with the complainant and the complainant deliberately choosen not to implead Unicorn Shipping & Logistics (Mumbai) and therefore, the complaint is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It is to be observed that even as per Opposite Party No.2 Unicorn Shipping & Logistics (Mumbai) is the Sub-agent of Opposite Party No.1 or vice varsa. We are of the view that when one of the principal or Sub-agent is a party to the complaint, not impleading the other, is not fatal. So, the complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary party. The point is answered infavour of the complainant.
10. Point Nos. 4 to 6: (a). the series of events that took place in the transaction in question are important to decide the case in one way or the other. It is also to be noted Unicorn Shipping & Logistics (Mumbai) is the Sub-agent or Principal of the Opposite Party No.1. It was engaged by the complainant for the purpose of customs clearance/ Customs House clearing Agent (CHA) after the arrival of Cargo. The Principal Logistics is HAPAG-LLOYD;
(b). As per the written version of Opposite Party No.2 at Page-4, Para-11 (a) - One Lamix Composites, GMBH is the supplier who appointed one Gateway Cargo Systems GMBH as its booking agent at the Port of Origin in Germany and Opposite Party No.2 is carrying on business as booking agents. The duty of Opposite Party No.2 is only to release the Cargo after collecting all the transport and allied expenses from the complainant. So it is the contention that there is no privity of contract between Opposite Party No.2 and the complainant. It is to be observed that Opposite Party No.2 was engaged by the HAPAG-LLOYD as its agent. It means it is the duty of Opposite Party No.2 to guard the interest of 10 the party who engaged it; Likewise, it also responsible to attend all the obligations that are to be performed / attended by the HAPAG-
LLOYD Therefore, we are of the view that Opposite Party No.2 cannot escape from liability on the ground that it has no privity of contract with the complainant.
11. As per the complaint the following are the events that took place:
SI Date Description of the Document No.
1. 08.03.2019 Container was packed in Germany for transportation with expected arrival to Mumbai on 05.04.2019.
05.04.2019 Pw1 made enquiry with Opposite Party No.l| along with documents received from supplier for clearing the |
3. 10.04.2019 Opposite Partygoods at the Port.
No.1 submitted with rates for quotation clearing the goods and it is accepted by the complainant.
13.04.2019 | The vassal arrived to the port Navi .
Free time of 14 Mumbai.
days is available for PW1 to
unload the goods at his
the container and to
premises, to destuff
return i.e., from
13.04.2019 to 26.04.2019.
6. 17.04.2019 Complainant
forwarded all relevant
documents to Opposite Party No.1 to get the goods cleared from
7. 18.04.2019 Check list received customns.
from Opposite Party No.1
it calculations of customs
same day it was sent back
duty and on the
to Opposite Party
8.
No.1.
18.04.2019 At 4-15 p.m.,
Opposite Party No.1 sent a mail
to PW1
forward original
to
documents
through courier to their Mumbai Office.
9. 19.04.2019 Good Friday -A public Holiday.
10. 20.04.2019 Pw1 sent original documents to Opposite| Party No.1 Office by courier and docket copy by e-mai.
11. 22.04.2019 At 7-00 p.m., Opposite Party No.1 senta mail to forward additional documents for the first timeimport and authorization letters.
12. 23.04.2019 Scanned copies of letters sent by courier and docket copy by e-mail to the Opposite Party No.1 by PW1.
13. 24.04.2019 Opposite Party No.1 sent mail to settle forward charges @ Rs.5,900/- to freight | Opposite Party No.2 and the payment was raised through Opposite Party No.1 for onward payment to Opposite Party No.2.
14. 25.04.2019 On the approach of Opposite Party No.1, the Opposite Party No.2 raised Invoice for Rs.44,225/-
11 done by the complainant to
15. 25.04.2019 | The payment was
Opposite Party No.1
No.2 to
16. 26.04.2019 Payment was made by Opposite Party
the liner agency. Pwl to send
17. 30.04.2019 Opposite Party No.1 suggested
of liner (HAPAG-|
indemnity bond infavour courier but
was sent in
LLOYD) and original
Copyin e-mail.
18. 01.05.2019 | May day holiday. No.1 received the delivery
19. 02.05.2019 Opposite Party to submit the container order at 3-30 p.m., for customs inspection.
No.2 raised Invoice for
20. 04.05.2019 Opposite Party to the liner from
demurrage charges payable
04.05.2019 to 08.05.2019.
No.2
10.05.2019 Invoice was raised by
Opposite Party
21. 11.05.2019.
claimingdetention charges till are the
Second Saturday & Sunday
22. 11.05.2019 Being
8 Bank holidays
12.05.2019 and detention
23. 13.05.2019 Customs duty, CFS Charges charges upto 13.05.2019 were paid.
24 15.05.2019 Opposite Party No. l collected delivery order received in the premises of Pwl|
25. 17.05.2019 Container and the same was destuffed.
Mumbai Port after 19.05.2019 The container reached
26. destuffing Without receiving the empty container
27. the detention| Opposite Party No.2 demanded charges till 19.05.2019.
28. Opposite Party No.2 raised another Invoice claiming detention charges up to 17.05.2019. from 11-46 a.m., PWlreceived mail
29. 30.05.2019 At Opposite Party No.2 for the inconvenience caused to him by their team.
30. 07.06.2019 Legal Notice issued by Pwl to the opposite parties 1 & 2.
31. 08.06.2019At 11-00 p.m., Pwl received mail from Opposite Party No.2 showing sequence of events while dealing with the transaction
32. 21.06.2019 Reply notice received from Opposite Party Nos.1 8 2.
12 Admittedly, Pw1 is the first time importer. As per written version of Opposite Party No.2 the complainant was informed in advance regarding the arrival of the Cargo on 26.03.2019 itself, stating that the Cargo would reach on 13.04.2019; It is also mentioned that the custom authorities completed their inspection and gave clearance on 09.05.2019. It shows even though the Cargo reached the Navi Mumbai Port on 13.04.2019 itself, the clearance was obtained on 09.05.2019. The series of events as 12 stated supra goes to show that even though relevant documents were sent to Opposite Party No.1 on 17.04.2019 the originals were sent on 20.04.2019 only. Again on 22.04.2019 Opposite Party No.1 requested for additional documents for the first time import and for authorization letter to get the clearance. Only on 23.04.2019 scanned copies were sent by Pw1. Here it is important to note that no evidence is projected to establish what are the documents to be submitted by a first time importer to get the clearance including authorization letter or letters to the Opposite Party No.1. In the absence of such evidence one cannot blame Opposite Party No.1 for not informing Pw1 in advance about the required documents required to submit to the customs and also to the Opposite Party No.2. Without payment of freight charges to the Opposite Party No.2 it, will not release the Cargo and in such circumstances customs authorities have no access to verify the stock.
13. Time and again it is mentioned by Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 that pwl1 being a first time importer has no knowledge about the men and matters and also the procedure that is to be followed in getting clearance from the customs including payment to be made to the liner HAPAG-LLOYD. It is the contention of Pw1 that even though the vessal reached the port on 13.04.2019, the Invoice was not raised by Opposite Party No.2 till 25.04.2019 and so, he found fault with Opposite Party No.2. It is to be observed that after "free time" for unloading the Cargo including return of the container by destuffing the container, demurrage charges will be levied on the importer. The liner has no opportunity to know on what date the importer will approach and pay the freight charges.. Therefore, no advance invoice will be raised expecting the approach of an importer on a particular future day. So, we are of the view that Opposite Party No.2 raising the invoice on 25.04.2019 cannot be found fault with. In the case on hand, like comedy of errors many of the "free time" dates fallen on holidays, for which no body can blame the other. The advice given by Opposite Party No.1 to give an indemnity bond in favour of liner, is only a bonafiede advice and no malafides can be imputed to Opposite Party No.1. Added to the same, without there being any evidence it is not proper on the 13 part of Pwl to allege a conspiracy between Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2 to grab money from him. The lack of knowledge about the port procedures and practices to Pwl, appears to be the reasons for not clearing the stock at the earliest.
14. It is also to be observed that Pw1 not paid the detention charges even though the container reached Mumbai on 19.05.2019 and Pwl thrown blame on HAPAG-LLOYD as responsible for the claim delay. Pwl should have paid the amount at first and then for the return. Normally, demurrage charges will be heavy to a lot to Pwl.
heavy by passing of everyday. Probably, it pained Ex.A6 e-mail correspondence goes to show that, how anxious de-stuffed the Op.No.1 & 2 exhibited in getting the stock cleared, container and to return the same. Ex.A9 goes to show that Opposite Party No.1 informed Pw1 giving details the efforts put forth by them to offload the container and obligations it had with transporter. Ex.A14 goes to show that HAPAG-LLOYD sent an e- mail to Pw1 well in advance about the arrival date of Cargo and what to do thereafter. After taking into consideration all these service on aspects we are of the view that there is no deficiency in the part of Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2. So, the points are answered against the complainant.
15. In the result, the complaint is dismissed without costs by holding that:
(1). The complainant is not a consumer within the meaning of Section 2 (1) (d) (vi) (G) & (i) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
(2) This State Commission is not having territorial jurisdiction as far as Opposite Party No.1 is concerned.
(3). The complaint is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties.
(4) That there is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice on the part of Opposite Party Nos.1 & 2.14
corrected Dictated to steno; transcribed and typed by him; and pronounced by us in the open court on this 28th day of November2022.