National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Sri Meenakshi vs American President Lines Ltd. And Anr. on 4 July, 2005
Equivalent citations: III(2005)CPJ82(NC)
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J. (Presiding Member)
1. This revision is directed against the order dated 9.12.1998 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai allowing appeal against the order dated 8.7.1996 of a District Forum whereby respondents/opposite parties were directed to pay jointly and severally to the petitioner/ complainant Rs. 2,68,243.20 being the value of consignment, Rs. 7,347.65 towards freight charges and Rs. 10,000/- by way of compensation and cost.
2. Petitioner booked with respondent No. 1, carrier whereof respondent No. 2 was the agent and name of which had been subsequently changed as respondent No. 3, on 14.9.1992 a consignment of books to be taken to Dubai. Original bill of lading and other documents were forwarded through Central Bank of India to Union National Bank, Dubai for collection of payment. Despite two extensions of two months each granted to Al-Ketab Stationery, consignee, it could not get the licence renewed. Petitioner went to Dubai in May, 1993 and fixed up alternative buyer-M/s. Al Khamri Commercial Enterprises. Original bill of lading, etc. were thereafter recalled by the Central Bank of India. On 11.8.1993 petitioner wrote to the respondents for changing the name of said alternative buyer. By the letter dated 21.10.1993 respondents informed the petitioner that consignment was duly delivered to Al-Ketab Stationery on 15.3.1993. Alleging deficiency in service complaint was filed by the petitioner seeking direction to the respondents to pay amount of Rs. 2,68,243.20 being value of consignment in question, Rs. 7,341.63 being amount of freight, Rs. 25,000/- towards mental agony and Rs. 1,04,598/- towards interest, totalling Rs. 4,05,182.83. Complaint was contested by filing joint written version by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Respondent No. 3 filed separate written version. Booking of consignment with respondent No. 1 and receipt of letter dated 11.8.1993 from the petitioner for altering the name of consignee were not disputed. However, it was alleged that original bill of lading was non-negotiable and direct and, therefore, respondents were under an obligation to deliver the consignment to the identified consignee without production of original bill of lading and making inquiry whether payment was made to the petitioner or not. Complaint was alleged to be barred by limitation under Clause 3 of para 6 of Article III of Schedule II of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 (for short "the Act").
3. Having heard Mr. Sudarshan Rajan for petitioner and Mr. A.K. Matta for respondents the issues which rise for decision are (i) whether complaint was barred under Clause 3 of para 6 of Article III of Schedule II of the Act and (ii) if delivery of consignment in question could not have been given by the respondents to Al-Ketab Stationery on 15.3.1993 without production of original bill of lading, etc. and ensuring payment of the value of consignment. Similar points were formulated by the State Commission in appeal. Said Clause 3 reads as under:
"In any event, the carrier and the shipper shall be discharged from all liabilities in respect of loss or damage unless it is brought within one year after delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered."
As can be seen from the order of State Commission the complaint was filed on 13.10.1995. In our view, said limitation provided under the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, is applicable before Consumer Fora it being a Special Act. Since complaint was admittedly filed beyond the period of one year from date of delivery of consignment, it was barred by time as rightly held by the State Commission.
4. Coming to second issue, bill of lading (copy at page 23) would show that it was non-negotiable and straight and not "to Order".
There seem to be no instructions from the petitioner to the respondents that delivery of consignment was to be made to the consignee only on production of original bill of lading and payment of the value of consignment by him. There was, thus, no deficiency in service on the part of respondents in handing over the consignment to the said consignee without production of original bill of lading and ensuring payment of the value of consignment by it. There is no illegality or jurisdictional error in the order passed by State Commission warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction under Section 21(b) of C.P. Act, 1986. Accordingly, revision petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.