AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
BRIEFLY, the facts are that the complainant sent 24 boxes of textile products to St. Thomas, South America on 30th April, 1992, through the opposite party (O.P.). The consignee of the goods according to the airway bill was Barclays Bank. The airway bill and other documents were sent by the complainant through Rajasthan Bank to the Barclays Bank and those were to be delivered to M/s. Redfort, Trompeter Gade, St. Thomas, Usvi-00802, South America. It is pleaded by the complainant that the documents were not got released by M/s. Redfort from Barclays Bank. The Barclays Bank sent a telex to the complainant claiming $ 85.60 as handling charges, which amount was paid by the complainant to them. The complainant has claimed the following amounts from the opposite party (O.P.). 1. Value of the consignment : US $ 7910.05 2. Interest @ 24% p.a. from 30.4.92 to 10.11.1992 : US $ 1055.53 3. Foreign Bank Handling charges : US $ 85.60 US $ 9051.18 4. Compensation On US $: @ 36.13% based on G.P (general profit) average of the year 1992 : US $ 3270.12 US $ 12321.30 Consequently, they filed the complaint that the O.P. be directed to pay 12, 321.30 US $ with future interest @ 24% p.a.
THE O.P. appeared and contested the claim. THEy inter-alia pleaded that the Commission had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint and that the goods had been delivered to M/s. Redfort and therefore, they are not liable to pay anything to the complainant. The question regarding jurisdiction of the Commission was decided in favour of the complainant vide order dated 20th September, 1993.
The 1st question that arises now for determination is, whether the O.P. is liable to pay the amount claimed by the complainant. It is pleaded by the O.P. that they delivered the goods to M/s. Redfort for whom those had been despatched and therefore they are not liable to pay anything to the complainant. We have considered the matter. It is not disputed that the documents were sent through Barclays Bank. The airway bill was in the name of the Barclays Bank. Without production of the airway bill etc., the goods could not be delivered. But they delivered the goods to M/s. Redfort without the same. Thus, there was deficiency in service on their part. Therefore, the complainant is entitled to recover the price of the goods from them.
THE complainant has further claimed interest and damages from the O.P. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we grant interest to them @15% p.a. from 7th May, 1992 when the goods were delivered by the O.P. to M/s. Redfort. THEy have been paid interest at fairly high rate, and therefore, we are not inclined to give any further damages to them. However, they are entitled to get US $ 85.60 which amount they paid to M/s. Barclays Bank as service charges. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint and direct the O.P. to pay US $ 7985.65 with interest @ 15% p.a. from 7.5.92 till the date of payment within a period of 3 months, failing which action shall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1,000/-. In case the O.P. wants, they can make the payment in Indian Currency at the prevailing market rate at the time of making the payment. Complaint allowed with costs.