COMBINED FREIGHT FORWARDERS vs DBC SONS GUJARAT PRIVATE LTD.

THIS action has come up for admission before us today. We heard the arguments of learned Counsel Mr. S. Srinivasaraghavan. We also perused the averments made in the complaint and also the connected documents filed alongwith it. The factors as below are getting revealed from the averments made in the complaint. (1) During November, 1997, Tube Investments of India Ltd., appointed the complainant as their clearing and forwarding agent for the purpose of handling a consignment of 210 bundles of steel tubes which was to be shipped from Madras to Colombo, Srilanka. The said cargo was to be shipped in containers. (2) The complainant in turn booked the container through the 1st opposite party which in turn has slot arrangement with the 2nd opposite party who was the steamer agent for the shipping line. (3) The opposite parties were to collect the freight for the services rendered by them at the time of the issue of the bill of lading as per the usual procedure in the shipping trade. The container was loaded on board the vessel by the opposite parties even before the customs formalities could be completed. (4) Because of the non-observance of the customs formalities, the consignment could not be transhipped to Srilanka in time and as a consequence Tube Investments of India Ltd., the consignor informed the complainant about the cancellation of the contract. Because of the delay involved in effecting delivery of the consignment, there was deterioration in quality of the material and fall in the price of steel tubes.

THE consignor, namely M/s. Tube Investments of India Ltd., made a demand of the complainant for a sum of Rs. 4,17,750/- being the invoice value of the cargo lost by the consignor. There was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties in transhipping the consignment of 210 bundles of steel tubes from Madras to Colombo-Srilanka.

Alleging the factors as above, the complainant knocked at the doors of this Commission for certain reliefs as prayed for in the complaint.

A thorough perusal of the averments in the complaint as well as the materials placed on record in the shape of documents reveal that Tube Investments of India Ltd., hired the services of the complainant, namely Combined Freight Forwards represented by its Managing Partner, Mr. D.S. Preetham, No. 250, Thambu Chetty Street, Chennai-1, for consideration in transhipping 210 bundles of steel tubes from Madras to Colombo, Srilanka. As such, there is privity of contract between Tube Investments of India Ltd. and the complainant, namely Combined Freight Forwarders. The complainant Combined Freight Forwarders in turn engaged the services of the 1st opposite party, namely DBC Sons Gujarat Private Ltd., Sterling Container Line, No. 6, Krishnan Koil Street, II Floor, Chennai - 1, which in turn engaged the services of the 2nd opposite party-Arbee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd., Second Floor, SM Plaza, 45, Armenian Street, Chennai-1. As such, there is no privity of contract between the Consumer Tube Investments of India Ltd., and the opposite parties 1 and 2, namely DBC Sons Gujarat Private Ltd. and Arbee Star Maritime Agencies Pvt. Ltd. The opposite parties 1 and 2 on the facts and in the circumstances of the case have to be construed in law as agents of the complainant. Under Section 186 of the Indian Contract Act, the authority of an agent may be expressed or implied. Section 187 of the said Act prescribes that an authority is said to be express when it is given by words spoken or written. An authority is said to be implied when it is to be inferred from the circumstances of the case; and things spoken or written, or the ordinary course of dealing, may be accounted circumstances of the case.

THUS relationship of principal and agent may be constituted by, (a) express appointment; (b) implication of law from the conduct or situation of the parties or from the necessity of the case; or (c) by subsequent ratification by the principal. The actual relationship of the parties must be determined from all the circumstances and not merely from the use of the word agent or the express agency agreement. The facts of the instant case are so eloquent to pinpoint the issue that the opposite parties 1 and 2 are the agents of the complainant. The complainant in such circumstances cannot at all be construed as a consumer to have availed of the services of the opposite parties 1 and 2 for consideration.

IN this view of the matter, the complaint filed as such deserves to be rejected in limine and the same is accordingly rejected. Complaint rejected in limine.