- (1.)ALL the above three mentioned appeals are being decided by this common judgment as all of them have been preferred against the impugned order dated 5.3.2004 passed by the District Forum, Jaipur IInd in complainant No. 326/03. Appeal No. 113/06 :
(2.)THIS appeal has been filed by the appellant which was opposite party No. 1 before the District Forum against order dated 5.3.2004 by which the complaint of respondent No. 1 was allowed against the appellant as well as against respondent No. 2 Royal Jordanian which was opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum in the manner that the appellant as well as respondent No. 2 were directed to make payment to the tune of Rs. 4,52,319 within two months and in case the above amount was not paid within two months the complainant respondent No. 1 would be entitled to interest @ 9% p.a. on the above amount and further the appellant and respondent No. 2 would pay Rs. 2,000 as amount of compensation and Rs. 1,000 as amount of costs. It arises in the following circumstances : That the complainant respondent No. 1 had filed a complaint on 13.3.2003 before the District Forum against the present appellant and respondent No. 2 inter alia stating that the respondent No. 1 complainant is a partnership firm and the main business of respondent No. 1 is to export readymade garments. It was further stated in the complaint that respondent No. 1 firm had got an export order in the month of March 2002 from SNA ASTUCES, 7rue Sainte Apoline 75003 Paris (France) and that export order was of the value of CIF Euro 7480. It was further stated in the complaint that the said export order was subject to mandatory condition that the garments which were to be exported should by all means leave India for France by 30.4.2002. It was further stated in the complaint that, time was essence of the contract and thus consignment was to be shipped from New Delhi Airport (India) latest by 30.4.2002 to Paris Airport (France) as per terms and conditions agreed between the parties as per letter of credit (Anx. 5). It was further stated in the complaint that respondent No. 1 firm had engaged service of the appellant opposite party No. 1 Consolair for getting its consignment clear from the custom. It was further stated in the complaint that when the appellant was engaged for shipment of the consignment, it was agreed that the date of flight of the despatchment of the consignment would be 30.4.2002. It was further stated in the complaint that, thereafter, the appellant opposite party No. 1 contacted respondent No. 2 opposite party No. 2 (Royal Jordanian) for air lifting the consignment from India to Paris (France) and respondent No. 2 issued Airway Bill No. 512 -3245 -9593 on 27.4.2002. It was specifically mentioned in the said Airway Bill that the consignment would be sent from India to Paris (France) via Amman through its flight No. RJ -512 dated 30.4.2002. The consignment to be shipped was also described in the airway bill, including the number of boxes, their dimension, volume and weight. The number of invoice as well as the letter of credit was also mentioned in the airway bill. It was further stated in the complaint that respondent No. 1 complainant came to know later on that the consignment in question was air lifted from India by another flight on 5.5.2002 instead of being sent by flight No . RJ -512 on 30.4.2002 and as a result of which the said consignment had reached Paris (France) via Amman on 8.5.2002. It was further stated in the complaint that since the consignment in question was not sent from India to France by 30.4.2002, the consignee SNA ASTUCES refused to take the delivery. It was further stated in the complaint that as a result of which complainant respondent No. 1 had sustained monitory loss on various fronts as well as loss of its prestige in the international market. Thereafter notices were sent to the appellant and respondent No. 2 and since, there was no response from their side, the complaint was filed before the District Forum. An affidavit was filed by respondent No. 2 opposite party No. 2 before the District Forum on 16.5.2003 inter alia stating that all the allegations made by complainant respondent No. 1 were denied and it was stated that the agent of complainant respondent No. 1 was made known that the consignment would be air lifted only on 2.5.2002 as there was no flight on Tuesday and Wednesday and on 30.4.2002. Therefore, no deficiency in service on its part could be attributed.
(3.)A bare perusal of the order sheet dated 7.10.2003 of the file of the District Forum reveals that right to file written statements by the appellant as well as by respondent No. 2 was closed by the District Forum and the case was fixed for final arguments on 20.12.2003. The order sheet dated 30.7.2003 further reveals that the notices which were sent against the appellant were received with an endorsement "Refused to take."
There is also no dispute on the point that the various order sheets of the District Forum of the above mentioned complaint No : 326/03 reveal that the District Forum had not ordered to proceed ex parte against the appellant.