- (1.) THE sum and substance of the complainant s case is that the opposite party promised to carry the consignment in the vessel known as "Express Resolve". They failed to do it. They later said that the consignment would be shipped by "Express Renown" and again stated that it would be actually shipped by the vessel "Express Resolute". Thus, contrary to the assurance given by them to ship the consignment by the vessel "Express Resolve", they have taken their own time to ship it by some other vessel as a result of which the complainant had to suffer financially. Hence, the complaint has been filed.
(2.) THE opposite party refuted the allegations made in the complaint. They have stated that there was no agreement or assurance to carry the consignment by a particular vessel namely "Express Resolve". There was no delay in the carriage of consignment and that the complainant is not a consumer. The complaint is not main -tainable.
(3.) THE points that arise for determination are : (1) Whether the complaint is not maintainable? (2) Whether there is deficiency in service? The Points : The complaint, in our opinion, is not maintainable. The complainant is not the owner of the goods. The consignment was entrusted by M/s. Gitex through Lead King Air Services Pvt. Ltd., Chennai for shipping the same to Tapro Apparels Pvt. Limited, Colombo, Sri Lanka. The consignment was in turn handed over to the Draft Cargoways (India) Pvt. Ltd., namely the complainant herein for shipment to Colombo. Therefore, from the records what we find is that there is no hiring of service or privity of contract as between the complainant and the opposite party.;