VISHNU CARPETS Vs. MEARSK INDIA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint was initially filed against 4 parties, namely; Mearsk, India Ltd., Meridien Commercial Tower, 7th Floor, Windsor Place, New Delhi-1,2 Bank of India, Panipat SSI Branch, 49/3, Near BBMB, G.T. Road, Panipat-132 103, 3 a.m. Trade International Bank, One Midtown Plaza Suite 1105,1360, Peachtree Street, North East, Atlanta GA 30309, USA. and 4 Mahdavi's A&A Rus Co. Inc, 4411-B, Banker's Circle. Doraville GA 30360, USA.

(2.) On 16.7.2001, counsel for the complainant made an application that he will give up OP Nos. 2 & 4 from the array ol opposite parties and the said parties were ordered to be deleted. The complainant was asked to file fresh amended memo of parties. The complainant accordingly filed fresh amended memo of parties. However, it appears that subsequently OP No.3 was also deleted. The result is that the complaint is now against only one OP, namely, Mearsk India Ltd. who was the original OP No.1.

(3.) The complainant had booked 4 consignments valued at US Dollar 2,63,218.44 with OP No.1 xMearsk India Ltd. for delivery to Mahadavi's A&A Rus Co. Inc, Doraville, USA vide 4 Bills of lading dated 12.11.1998, 15.'1.1999, 22.1.1999 and 11.2.1999. Bills of Lading and other shipping documents were sent by the complainant through OP No.2 Bank on COD basis, namely Bank abroad was to deliver the documents to the consignee only after receipt of full payment. The complainant did not receive any payment in respect of the said 4 consignments from OP No.2 through Bank of India, Panipat, even though, around 2 years had already passed after the first consignment was sent. According to the complainant, he had reason to believe that all the 4 consignments were delivered by the OP No. 1 either without original documents being produced or on forged original documents without verifying the same. It was stated that in fact, the complainant was not fully aware of what took place when the consignment reached USA. It was further stated that it appears quite possible that OP No.2 delivered in same manner involving deficiency of service, documents including 4 original Bills of Lading to Mearsk India Ltd. without receiving the payments or in the alternative, OP No.1 delivered 4 consignments to Mearsk India Ltd. without collecting original Bills of lading or without proper Bills of lading and without proper verification of documents. The OPs did not furnish relevant particulars even in spite of repeated requests made by the complainant. The complainant sent legal Notice and then filed complaint seeking directions to OP No.1 to pay US Dollar 13,22,383 along with interest thereon @ 18% from 15.2.1999 and compensation for business loss at US Dollar 50,000 per month from 15.2.1999 or in the alternative OP Nos. 1 & 2 shall pay jointly and severally US Dollar 5,19,750 to the complainant with further interest from 1.7.2001 on the said amount @ 18% till the date of payment. It was also prayed that OP Nos. 1 & 2 shall pay US Dollar 1,50,000 to the complainant towards loss of profit in business upto 30.6.2000 and at US Dollar 50,000 per annum for every year thereafter or proportionate amount for the part of the year and such other relief as is deemed fit.