Per Hon’ble Mr.S.B.Sawarkar, Member
1. This appeal is directed u/sec.15 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (herein after referred as ‘Act’ for brevity) by unsuccessful complainant against an order dated 09/05/2006 passed in consumer complaint no.86/2005, M/s.Mclloyd & Co. v/s. Maersk Concord & Airfreight India Pvt. Ltd., P & O Ned Lloyd; passed by Central Mumbai District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum.
2. The facts in short of the case are that the appellant no.1 - M/s.Mclloyd & Co. represented by Shri Ghanshyam Vadodaria and appellant no.2- M/s.Mclloyd & Co. are importers of plastic waste and scrap generated from various processes which they import from M/s.Scrap Source, Carrollton, USA. M/s.Scrap Source, Carrollton (herein after called as ‘Shipper’) shipped the consignment through the respondent -P & O Ned Lloyd as per their Bill of Lading dated 03/05/2005, and the consignment was delivered at JNPT Nhava Sheva.
3. It is the contention of the appellant that it was recorded on the Bill of lading that the final destination of the consignment, is at I.C.D. Sachin Surat (Gujarat) and, therefore, respondents had accepted the responsibility of delivering the consignment at I.C.D. Sachin Surat and not at Nhava Sheva as was done by them. Appellant therefore made a request to the respondent for delivery of the goods to I.C.D. Sachin, Surat to which the respondents refused and contended that the shipped goods were to be delivered only at JNPT Nhava Sheva and their responsibility of delivery was over once the goods were released at JNPT Nhava Sheva. Appellant thereafter made a complaint before the District Forum, Central Mumbai vide complaint no.86/2005.
4. District Forum vide their order dated 09/05/2006 dismissed the complaint. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the complainant/appellant preferred this appeal.
5. Heard the Ld. advocates for the parties at length.
6. Appellant has cited reported judgement II (2002) CPJ 24(NC) in the matter of Tata Chemical Ltd. V/s.Skypack Couriers Pvt.Ltd. supporting their say that the fine and the small printed condition printed in the centre of Bill of Lading was not applicable to them as it was not specifically brought to their notice and, hence, it cannot be acted upon by the respondent. It is prominently noted on Bill of Lading that the last destination of cargo is I.C.D. Sachin.
7. Respondent repudiated stating that the Bill of Lading very clearly showed the place of delivery at J.N.P.T. Nhava Sheva and whatever has been declared in the centre of Bill of Lading is not subscribed by the respondent as is clearly denoted by the condition printed above it that “under mentioned particulars as declared by the shipper but not acknowledged by the carrier (see clause 11)”.
8. The defendant also cited judgement of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal in Commission in Original Petition No.39 of 2004 M/s.Ideal Carpets Ltd. V/s. S. Anand Clearing and Forwarding P.Ltd. & Ors., in support of their say that the transport of the goods was for the commercial purpose and hence was therefore not within the ambit of this Act.
9. We heard the arguments at length and have perused the Bill of Lading carefully. The Bill of Lading clearly shows the various details one after the other showing the name of the shipper, name of the consignee, name of the party to be notified. Details of the vessel, the port of lading and then it very clearly shows the class of vessel and the place of delivery along with the place of receipt also. The entire sequence is properly depicted on the Bill of Lading, clearly specifying the port of discharge to be JNPT Nhava Sheva.
10. It comes to the notice that the present appellant was not a contracting party to engage the carrier for shipment of the scrap. The appellant has not shown any document except the Bill of Lading between them and the shipper, the consignee and the carrier, which specified the delivery at I.C.D. Sachin other than Nhava Shewa. In the absence of the appellant, in the shipping contract with carrier, per se, with no positive evidence, except the bill of lading, gives him no ground to claim the delivery of the shipment as per his wish other than what was contracted by way of the Bill of Lading. The appellants appear to be making futile and groundless claims against the respondents.
11. The objection as to hiring services of the respondents for commercial purpose is concerned, the same is devoid of any substance. The services of the respondents were hired as a carrier and it had nothing to do with or had any nexus with running and/or profit or loss of the business of the complainant.
12. Thus, after careful evaluation of the material placed before us, we find no fault with the dismissal of the complaint. We therefore pass the order below :-
ORDER
Appeal stands dismissed.
Appellant shall pay `25,000/- to the respondent as costs of appeal and shall bear its own costs.
Copies of the order be furnished to the parties.
Pronounced on 22nd March, 2013.
