9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (8) TMI 1534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cting as an agent of Coronet Group Inc, as such, in view of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 it cannot be held personally liable to enforce the contract entered between its principal and the Appellants. This Court, in its order dated September 10, 2009, has accepted the plea of Respondent No. 1 that Respondent No. 1 is not a consignee, but only an agent of the intermediate consignee - Respondent No, 3 Zip Code Inc, which is subsidiary to Coronet Group Inc, the consignee named in the cargo slips, is the only party which can be held liable for taking delivery without depositing the price of the goods with the Bank. Appeal dismissed. - Civil Appeal Nos. 4861 and 9217 of 2012 - - - Dated:- 16-8-2016 - R.K. Agrawal and Prafulla C. Pant, JJ. For the Appellant : H.L. Tiku, Sr. Adv., Yashmeet Kaur and Arti Singh, Advs. For the Respondents : Vikramjit Banerjee, Kunal Chatterjee, Amit Mishra, Hima Lawrence, Keshav Roy Chowdhury and Maitrayee Banerjee, Advs. JUDGMENT Prafulla C. Pant, J. 1. These appeals are directed against common judgment and order dated March 22, 2012, passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that Respondent No. 1 received the complainants' goods on behalf of the buyer/consignee, i.e. Zip Code Inc. which was part of Coronet Group Inc. as its agent. It is further pleaded that there was no payment made by the Appellants/complainants for the service provided by Respondent No. 1, nor there was any contract between the complainants and Respondent No. 1 for shipment of the goods. The receipt, custody and forwarding of the goods of the complainants 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. 1 to a carrier in accordance with the instructions of the consignee or other cargo owner, the sole responsibility and liability for the care, custody, carriage and delivery of goods was that of the concerned carrier. Respondent No. 1 was under no liability whatsoever in respect of any failure on the part of the consignee or any other party. According to Respondent No. 1, complainants' claim, if any, can lie only as against the principal, i.e. buyer/consignee who appears to have not made payment to the complainants for the value of the cargo. Since Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch appears not to have been done in this case before the National Commission. For the reason given above, we set aside the impugned judgment of the National Commission and remand the matters to the National Commission with liberty to the Respondents-claimants to implead the consignee as well as the carrier in their claim petitions. Notice will be issued to the newly impleaded parties and case will be decided by the National Commission preferably within six months from the production of a copy of this order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. All points of law and fact are expressly left open to the parties. The amount deposited here by the Appellants will be refunded to them with accrued interest. The appeals are accordingly disposed of. No order as to costs. 6. In the light of above order, Respondent No. 2 Central Fidelity Bank, Respondent No. 3 Zip Code and Respondent No. 4 Hoegh Lines/American President Lines Limited) were impleaded and the case proceeded and decided afresh by the NCDRC. The case against Respondent No. 3 M/s. Zip Code and Respondent No. 4 Hoegh Lines/American President Lines Limited app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as Wells Fargo Bank, it is submitted that there is no relief sought against it by the Appellants/complainants in their complaints. It is further submitted that Respondent No. 2 was only a consignee as per the records of the case, i.e. it was the consignee as set out in the cargo receipts and the notify party/intermediate consignee was Zip Code Inc. (Respondent No. 3). As such, it was Respondent No. 3 who was the actual buyer and who was to be notified by Respondent No. 1 once the consignment arrived in Norfolk, USA. In turn, Respondent No. 3 was to inform Respondent No. 2, subsequent to which Respondent No. 3 was to pay for the goods and obtain a certificate from Respondent No. 2 to show that such payment has been made. It was subsequent to this process that Respondent No. 2 was to release the goods to Respondent No. 3. It is further submitted that it is also an admitted fact that no shipment was ever delivered to Respondent No. 2. The Appellant himself submits that the shipment was not delivered to the consignee name in the cargo receipts . As such, there was no obligation whatsoever upon Respondent No. 2, that it had to discharge. 10. We have considered the arguments advanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s an agent of Coronet Group Inc, as such, in view of Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 it cannot be held personally liable to enforce the contract entered between its principal and the Appellants. This Court, in its order dated September 10, 2009, has accepted the plea of Respondent No. 1 that Respondent No. 1 is not a consignee, but only an agent of the intermediate consignee. That being so, Respondent No. 1 cannot be held to be liable in respect of claim made by the Appellants. We think it relevant to mention here that in Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd. v. Go Go Garments (1998) 3 SCC 247, this Court has already made clear that defence Under Section 230 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 is available in the cases under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the agents of the principal with whom the complainant had the agreement. 14. As far as liability of Respondent No. 2 Central Fidelity Bank and that of Respondent No. 4 is concerned, we agree with the NCDRC that Respondent No. 4 had carried the consignment and delivered the same as per Bill of Lading and there is no contract between the Appellants and Respondent No. 4. Also Respondent No. 2 Bank cannot be held li ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
