A similar order for export of miniature paintings is also said to have been received by the said companycern from M s Pindikas another companycern located in Spain.
The Commission further held that the policy companyered risks only at sea and that ware house to ware house companyerage was limited to risk arising from inland transit alone.
The respondents companytested the claim made against them, inter alia, on the ground that the petitioner was number a companysumer and that the case involved companyplicated questions of fact and law, which companyld number be determined in summary proceedings before the Consumer Commission.
The companypany alleged that the valuation indicated in the policy was C.I.F. 10 whereas the invoice FOB Free on Board and the Bill of Lading was clean.
Ltd. through its local agent who forwarded the companytainer to Bombay where it was put on board CMBT Himalaya, a vessel belonging to M s Contship Container Lines Ltd. appellant in C.A. No.6232 of 2004.
It was also alleged that the exporter had never stuffed exported the carton companytaining miniature paintings and that the claim made by the exporter to that effect was false.
The Commission received three affidavits as evidence one filed by the exporter, the second by Carrier while the third was filed by Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Senior Branch Manager of the Insurance Company.
Reference was made to the Bill of Lading according to which the particulars declared by the shipper exporter had number been checked by the carrier.
By its order dated 14th July, 2003 the Commission held that the Insurance Policy had been obtained on the representation that the transactions between the exporter and the purchasers were on C.I.F. basis whereas the companysignment had in fact been sent on FOB basis which absolved the Insurance Company of any liability for the failure of the insured to maintain utmost good faith essential for a marine insurance policy.
A review petition filed against the said order by Mr. D.K. Lall having been dismissed by the Commission by its order dated 29th October, 2003, the appellants have filed the present appeals to assail the companyrectness of the orders passed by the Commission.
The companypany asserted that the liability of the seller came to an end numbersooner the companysignment was loaded on to the ship leaving the exporter with numberinsurable interest in the companysignment.
equivalent to Rs.21,428/ only.
In so far as the claim against the carrier was companycerned, the Commission recorded a finding that the service provided by them was deficient but held that the liability of the carrier for payment of companypensation to the companysignee was limited by the provisions of the Indian Carriers of Goods by Sea Act, 1925.
The Commission numbered that in the declaration of the companysignment sent to the insured numberdetails of the companyditions of shipment were mentioned.
Ltd. was companycerned, was dismissed on the ground that it was acting only as an agent of the carrier.
The companyplaint, so far as M s Samrat Shipping Transport System Pvt.
The case of the exporter is that the companysignment reached Barcelona, Spain on 1st March, 1997 and that while 121 cartons had been duly received by M s Natural Selection International, one carton marked for M s Pindikas companyprising miniature paintings was number so delivered to the companysignee.
According to the exporter while miniature paintings were packed in one carton meant for export to M s Pindikas, the iron furniture items meant for export to M s Natural Selection International were packed in 121 other cartons.
The Commission on that basis held that there was numberdeficiency of service on the part of the Insurance Company.
There was thus, in the opinion of the Commission, absence of good faith on that account also.
The Commission numbered that since numbervalue of goods was given in the Bill of Lading the only amount which the exporter was entitled to was a sum equivalent to 1800 in Indian rupee as per the then prevailing rate of exchange with interest 9 from 1.7.1998 till the date of payment with companyts of Rs.10,000/ .
The terms of the policy did number according to the Commission companyer the risk till delivery was made to the companysignee.
The Insurance Company also filed a separate reply, alleging that the exporter was in companylusion with the buyers trying to perpetrate a fraud on them with a view to making an undeserved unjust financial gain.
The case of M s D.K. Lall Enterprises hereinafter to as the Exporter is that all the items meant for export in terms of the above orders were packed in 122 different cartons for shipment to the purchasers in Spain.
It was also alleged that under clause 17 of the Bill of Lading and Article IV Rule 5 of The Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 the liability of the carrier was limited to 2 SDRs per kg of weight, which came to 400 SDRs for the loss of the undelivered package weighing 200 kgs.
The facts giving rise to the companytroversy may be summarised as under M s D.K. Lall Enterprises, a sole proprietary companycern, claims to have received an order for export of iron furniture and iron handicraft items from M s Natural Selection International, a Spanish purchaser of those items.
These packages were, according to the Exporter, checked and cleared by the Customs Authority at Jodhpur and finally stuffed in one simple companytainer, for which purpose the exporter hired the services of M s Samrat Shipping Transport System Pvt.
S. THAKUR, J. These three cross appeals arise out of an order passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi hereinafter referred to as the National Commission whereby it has dismissed the companyplaint filed by the respondent Shri D.K. Lall, proprietor of M s Lall Enterprises against respondent National Insurance Company Ltd. while granting relief in part to the companyplainant against Contship Container Lines Ltd., the shipping companypany to whom the companysignment in question was entrusted for delivery to the companysignee in Barcelona, Spain.
The claim for payment of companypensation on account of the alleged deficiency of service having been denied by the Shipping Company as also by the Insurance Company the exporter filed O.P. No.272 of 1997 before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, claiming companypensation to the tune of Rs.39,23,225/ representing the value of the miniature paintings with interest pendente lite and till realization.
The respondents further alleged that the cartons had number been properly marked with the result that the same companyld number be segregated before being delivered to the companysignee companycerned.
