- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for the parties. These appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 4-10-2004 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redress Commission, New Delhi.
(2.) IT appears that the respondent was a consignor of certain goods which were given to the appellant as a carrier to be transported from Mumbai to St. Petersburg. From a perusal of the record, it appears that the goods reached St. Petersburg and the carrier informed the consignee i.e. Royal Bank of Canada to take delivery of goods. From the letter dated 17-6-1997 it appears that Royal Bank of Canada returned the documents stating that the buyer cannot be contacted. We are of the opinion that the carrier had done whatever was possible to have been done i.e. to transport the goods to the destination and intimate the consignor.
(3.) AS held by this Court in Saddler Shoes (P) Ltd. v. Air India, 2001 (8) SCC 390 it has to be presumed that when the consignee fails to take delivery of the goods the consignor was informed about this and hence he should have made efforts to find an alternative buyer. There is no responsibility of the carrier after this.;