- (1.) THE complainant engaged the services of the 1st opposite party as a Fleet forwarder to handle the consignment which was to be shipped in three 20 -feet containers since the complainant had an order for supply of 475 metric tons of Fortified Resin to M/s. Redington Pvt. Ltd., Singapore. The 1st opposite party in turn engaged the opposite party Nos. 2 and 3. The duty of the 1st opposite party is to ensure that all customs and statutory formalities are complied with and to coordinate with the 2nd and 3rd opposite parties. The 2nd and 3rd opposite parties are the main line and feeder line operators respectively. In the process of shifting the containers, one of the three containers was involved in an accident and, therefore, it was found not suitable for further shipment to the Port. The other two containers viz., TRLU/338724/6 and TRLU/343070/1 were taken by the 1st and 2nd opposite parties to the port and were loaded in the Vessel "Indian Carrier" chartered by the 3rd opposite party on 4.4.1997 without obtaining clearance from Customs and without completing the customs formalities and statutory regulations. The said containers were shipped and discharged at Colombo thus without complying with the statutory regulations. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the opposite parties to ensure that there was customs clearance before putting the cargo on board. The opposite parties ignored the same and failed to take basic and fundamental precautions and shipped the containers to Colombo which was thus a violation of the Customs Act. The complainant informed the opposite parties about this irregularity. They have ignored the fundamental requirements and they have failed to exercise due diligence and care. The complainant immediately called upon the opposite parties by letter dated 3.6.1997 to do the needful to bring back the containers from Colombo to Madras for inspection by authorities. The containers could not be released by the authorities in Colombo for want of customs clearance from Madras Port. As a result of the same the complainant had been put to considerable loss in the business with foreign buyers, cancellation of orders, and they lost their valuable business and were deprived of an opportunity of developing a long term business relationship with the foreign buyer. Therefore, in such circumstances, the complainant has claimed a sum of Rs. 8,48,673/ - towards the value of the cargo with interest at 24% along with a sum of Rs. 1,67,012/ - towards excise duty and Rs. 30,000/ - towards container movement charges and Rs. 6,00,000/ - towards loss suffered on account of cancellation of contract besides Rs. 1 lakh as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings and costs.
(2.) THE opposite parties 1 to 3, though filed version, did not choose to take part in the proceedings with the result that they were set ex parte.
(3.) ON the side of the complainant Exs. A -1 to A -35 were marked. The points for determination are : (1) whether there is deficiency in service? and (2) whether the complainant is entitled to compensation as claimed?;