BRIG CARGO INTERNATIONAL Vs. ROYAL CARPET INDUSTRIES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant, which is in the business of manufacturing hand -knitted woolen carpets received an export order for export of 28 rolls of woolen carpets to an overseas buyer namely, M/s. Designer's Collections. This was followed by another export order from the same buyer, for export of 32 rolls of Indian hand -knitted carpets. The consignments were to be delivered at Hamburg in Germany. The complainant hired the services of the appellant, Brig Cargo International, which is a Clearing & Forwarding Agent, for the purpose of facilitating the shipment of the aforesaid goods. The appellant availed the services of the shipping line namely Dolphin Container Line which was operated by Transea Shipping Agency Pvt. Ltd., opposite party No.3 in the complaint. The bills of lading, called multimodal transport document were issued by Dolphin Container Line, describing the complainant as the consigner/shipper. The consignee was described as 'unto order' in the said bills of lading. The address to be notified by the container line was of the overseas buyer namely, M/s. Designer's Collections, Germany.

(2.) THE case of the complainant is that after the shipment of goods, the Bills of Lading were sent by it to the banker of the foreign buyer through its banker, M/s. Punjab National Bank. The overseas buyer had to collect one set of the Bills of Lading from the foreign bank after payment of the invoice value to its bank. Thereafter, the foreign bank was entitled to take delivery of the cargo from the warehouse of the shipping line at Hamburg. The foreign bank was expected to debit the amount of the invoice to the account of the foreign buyer and inform the Punjab National Bank, which was to credit the aforesaid amount to the account of the complainant. This is also the case of the complainant that it did not receive any intimation/advise from Punjab National Bank with respect to the payment of the aforesaid goods and on inquiry came to know that the bills had been returned unpaid to Punjab National Bank, having not been retired by the overseas buyer by making payment to the foreign bank.

(3.) A letter dated 22 -06 -2001 was addressed by the foreign buyer to its local agent Mr. B. Verma, informing that due to very poor market and poor connections they were not in a position to pay the bills in question on due date and that the same would be paid before 21 -05 -2001. Vide aforesaid letter the overseas buyer also undertook to bear the storage and demurrage charges. Mr. Verma was impleaded as opposite party No.4 in the complaint. When the complainant took up the matter with the appellant, he was informed, vide letter dated 27 -03 -2002 that the inquiry with the shipping line had revealed that the shipment had been delivered in December, 2000, against the original bill of lading.