LAMDAA APPARELS vs NATVAR PARIKH INDUSTRIES LTD.

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.

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. 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.

The 3rd opposite party has filed a long written version in which they have denied the allegations in the complaint and have contended that there was no lapses on their part and hence no claim can be made against them.

THE point that has to be considered is whether there was deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties as alleged by the complainant. Point: A careful reading of the complaint would show that if at all any deficiency in service is alleged in the complaint it is only against the 1st opposite party and no deficiency in service whatsoever has been alleged against the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. As against the 1st opposite party it is stated that the consignments were delivered to them on 24.2.1994 and 25.2.1994 and they never bothered to book for the flight till 9.3.1994 knowing fully well that the consignments had to be delivered at Frankfurt on or before 10.3.1994, and this undue delay caused by the 1st opposite party to send the consignments resulted in the cancellation of the order by the buyer and therefore, the 1st opposite party is responsible for the loss. It is the definite case of all the 3 opposite parties that the consignments were delivered to the 1st opposite party not on 24.2.1994 and 25.2.1994 but they were delivered only on 10.3.1994. The opposite parties have filed Exs. B14 and B15 copies of the Airway Bills of the two consignments and they clearly show that the two Airway Bills were prepared on 8.3.1994 and 9.3.1994. It is apparent from these documents that the complainant has entrusted the consignments to the 1st opposite party only on these dates i.e., on 8.3.1994 and 9.3.1994. The 1st opposite party Company have also filed Ex. B3 extract from their book maintained regarding receipt of goods for customs clearance and despatch. This extract also show that the consignments in question were delivered only on 9.3.1994. However, the complainant Company have filed Exs. A3 & A4 copies of Airway Bill and it is contended that these copies show that the Airway Bills were prepared on 28.2.1994 and 25.2.1994. But Ex. A3 manifestly show that first "8.3.1994" had been put and subsequently it has been corrected in to "28.2.1994" and Ex. A4 also shows similar corrections. These only indicate that the complainant has corrected the original dates of Airway Bill to make it appear that the goods had been delivered to the 1st opposite party earlier in February, and further while according to the complainant the goods were delivered on 24.2.1994 and 25.2.1994 but the dates of Exs. A3 and A4 are 28.2.1994 and 25.2.1994. It has not at all been explained even during the arguments how the corrections in the dates have happened. It has been merely stated that Exs. A3 & A4 have been handed over to the complainants by the opposite parties, but there is no reason as to why the opposite party should make corrections to their detriment. It is clear therefore, that the consignments had been handed over to the 1st opposite party only on 8.3.1994 and 9.3.1994 and not on 24.2.1994 and 25.2.1994 as stated by the complainant. From the averments in the complaint that me 1st opposite party did not get a flight till 9.3.1994 it is clear that a flight had been booked on that day i.e., even on the date the 2nd consignment was handed over to the 1st opposite party the 1st consignment having been delivered just on the previous day. Therefore, there is no substance in the plea that the 1st opposite party was guilty of delay in transporting the consignments.

EX. Bl is a letter dated 23.2.1994 from the complainant to the 1st opposite party. Therein it is stated thus: "PLS NOTE : AWB MUST BE BEFORE 25.2.1994. PLEASE CO-OPERATE REGARDING THIS." From this it appears probable, as submitted by the learned Counsel for the 1st opposite party, that the complainant requested that the Airway Bill may be made to appear to have been prepared before 25.2.1994 and the 1st opposite party had acceded to that while in fact the consignments were delivered to them only on 8.3.1994 and 9.3.1.994. Therefore, from these it is clear that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party. We have stated supra that no specific allegations of any deficiency in service have been made against the 2nd and the 3rd opposite parties. The opposite parties have denied that they ever agreed to deliver the goods to the consignee on or before 10.3.1994 and there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that they so agreed. In this connection EX. Al, which according to the complainant is an order of confirmation, shows that the consignments had to be delivered to the consignee on 10.3.1994. But the opposite parties are not parties to this document and this is a document prepared by the complainant himself and therefore, this document cannot be relied on to prove that the opposite parties agreed to deliver the goods on 10.3.1994. Again in the complaint itself it is clearly stated that the cartons have been delivered in Frankfurt on 22.3.1994 and 24.3.1994. This means that the consignee had taken delivery of the consignments and he has not returned them. Considering all these we hold that the complainant failed to prove deficiency in service on the part of any of the opposite parties. In the result therefore, the complaint is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs. Complaint dismissed.