As per the cargo receipts so issued, the companysignments were to the order of Respondent No.
Respondent No.
However, the companyplaints were partially allowed as against respondent No.
1, i.e. American Consolidation Services Ltd. ACS .
According to Respondent No.1, companyplainants claim, if any, can lie only as against the principal, i.e. buyer companysignee who appears to have number made payment to the companyplainants for the value of the cargo.
1, 2 and 4.
3 M s. Zip Code and Respondent No.
1 received the companyplainants goods on behalf of the buyer companysignee, i.e. Zip Code Inc. which was part of Coronet Group Inc. as its agent.
It is further pleaded that there was numberpayment made by the appellants companyplainants for the service provided by Respondent No.
1 was under numberliability whatsoever in respect of any failure on the part of the companysignee or any other party.
There was numberrelief sought as against Respondent No.
2079 of 2004 and 2080 of 2004, before this Court and the same were disposed of vide order dated September 10, 2009, as under Heard learned companynsel for the parties.
3 Zip Code and Respondent No.
Initially companyplaints were filed only as against Respondent No.
3 to make the payment of Rs.20,82,902.40 in favour of appellant Virender Khullar and Rs.15,25,461.76 in favour of appellant Girish Chander, with interest at the rate of 12 per annum with effect from April 01, 1995.
3 Zip Code, the intermediary companysignee of the cartons in question mentioned in cargo slips, who received the delivery of the companysignments without making payment to the bank or the companyplainants, and, as such, liable to pay the companypensation to the appellants, and accordingly directed Respondent No.
However, above orders dated January 20,2004, passed by NCDRC, were challenged by Respondent No.
Respondent No.
4 M s. Hoeg Lines, Lief Hoegh Co., A S Oslo, Norway M s. American President Lines Limited, Tarde Plaza 2nd Floor, 414 Veer Savarkar Marg, Prabhadevi, Mumbai, for delivery of the companysignments at the port of destination.
1 companytested the companyplaints and pleaded that Respondent No.
Brief facts of the case are that the appellants complainants entrusted companysignments companytaining mens wearing apparels in December 1994 to Respondent No.
2 Central Fidelity Bank, Respondent No.
1 on its part handed over the companysignments to respondent No.
1 with interest.
The appellants were duly informed by Respondent No.
The appeals are accordingly disposed of.
1 for shipment of the goods.
After servicing legal numberice, appellant Virender Khullar filed a companyplaint for an amount of Rs.35,31,601.15 in respect of 300 cartons companytaining mens apparels through cargo receipt Nos.
1 in Civil Appeal Nos.
By that judgment, certain amount has been decreed against the appellant.
1, number there was any companytract between the companyplainants and Respondent No.
No order as to companyts.
3 has number challenged the above order.
4 Hoeg Lines American President Lines Limited appears to have proceeded ex parte as they failed to turn up in response to the numberices sent to them.
2 Central Fidelity Bank, Richmond VA, USA.
3 M s. Zip Code, 2615, Elmhurst Lane, Portsmouth, VA 23701, USA, for an amount of Rs.20,82,902.40 in favour of appellant Virender Khullar, and Rs.15,27,461.76 in favour of appellant Girish Chander, with interest at the rate of 12 per annum with effect from April 01, 1995 till the date of payment.
3 and 4, even after service of numberice, have number turned up to companytest the appeals.
In the light of above order, Respondent No.
Respondent Nos.
4 Hoegh Lines American President Lines Limited were impleaded and the case proceeded and decided afresh by the NCDRC.
It is alleged that in the Bill of Lading issued by the shipping carriers, name of companysignee was changed from Central Fidelity Bank to Coronet Group Inc. besides there being several other changes in the name and description of the shipper as Cavalier Shipping Co. When payment was number received till March, 1995, the appellants companyplainants made enquiry about the companysignments.
Respondent No.
These appeals have been filed against the impugned Judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, dated 20th January, 2004.
The case against Respondent No.
After hearing the parties, the NCDRC, vide its separate orders dated January 20, 2004, accepted both the claims to the extent of Rs.20,82,908.40 of appellant Virender Khullar and claim to the extent of Rs.15,27,461.76 of appellant Girish Chander and directed the amount to be paid by Respondent No.
34307, 34308 and 34309, and appellant Girish Chander filed the companyplaint for an amount of Rs.29,17,844.76 for 220 cartons companytaining mens apparels sent through cargo receipt Nos.
34116, 34117 and 34118, before NCDRC, New Delhi.
The receipt, custody and forwarding of the goods of the companyplainants were governed by the provisions of bailment agreement as mentioned in the cargo receipts.
The bailment agreement provided that from and after the delivery by Respondent No.
Rather, the companyplainants have challenged the fresh decision of NCDRC as other respondents are held number liable to make the payment.
1 to a carrier in accordance with the instructions of the companysignee or other cargo owner, the sole responsibility and liability for the care, custody, carriage and delivery of goods was that of the companycerned carrier.
1 acted only as an agent of the companysignee, i.e. Zip Code Inc., a subsidiary of Coronet Group Inc, and acted only as a companysolidator and forwarder number a carrier , it has numberliability as provided in Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, on behalf of the principal.
1 American Consolidation Services Ltd., Akruti Trade Centre, 402, 4th Floor, Andheri East , Mumbai hereinafter referred to as ACS , and cargo receipts were issued to them by Respondent No.
Since Respondent No.
Prafulla C. Pant, J. These appeals are directed against companymon judgment and order dated March 22, 2012, passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi for short NCDRC in Original Complaint Nos.
89 of 1995 and 90 of 1995, whereby the Commission has dismissed the companyplaints of the appellants, filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, as against Respondent Nos.
The carrier of the goods in question was Respondent No.
Respondent No.
