BLOKS INTERNATIONAL Vs. INDIA OVERSEAS BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Complainant availed the services of O. P. No.1 Indian Overseas Bank for negotiating the documents for the purpose of export of handicraft items to USA. In return O. P. No.1 availed the services of O. P. Nos.2 and 3 as a courier by way of transmitting the documents through courier. Since the documents could not reach the destination the goods exported by the complainant also did not reach to its consignee. On account of deficiency in service on the part of the O. Ps. the complainant has through this complaint sought compensation of the value of consignment of the goods amounting to Rs.1,30,683.70 p. with interest @ 18% holding the O. Ps. jointly and severally liable besides the cost of the complaint.

(2.) Facts lie in a moderate compass. The complainant procured an order for export of items of handicrafts comprising bone brass necklaces and brass purse for the value of US Dollars 2685.10 from its foreign buyer M/s. Profile Du Monde, Los Angels, USA. As all the export documents are required to be negotiated through banks only the complainant hired the services of respondent No.1 and handed over the documents for sending the same to the said buyer for delivery through Colombia National Bank, California, USA. O. P. No.3 DHL Worldwide Express is carrying on courier services worldwide and O. P. No.2 is its agent in India. On 17th January, 1999 O. P. No.1 informed the complainant that bills sent against its reference No.442/c/485082 had been returned unpaid and immediate action was required. Letter dated 24.1.1999 was delivered by the complainant to O. P. No.1 to forward the said documents to the alternative buyer namely M/s. Unique Craftstitch, Los Angels on 30 days D. A. basis through the same Bank i. e. , Colombia National Bank.

(3.) Admittedly the goods were sent through Airway Bill No.026 6848 8932 dated 30.11.1989 and concerned items were airlifted as per invoice No.139/1989 dated 20.11.1989. Unfortunately the documents did not reach the alternative buyer which should have in normal course reached within 7 days. The alternative buyer sent a tax message dated 30.3.1990 to the complainant in that regard and also informed that the demurrage on goods on account of delay will be borne by the complainant. The complainant contacted the Colombia National Bank and O. P. No.1 assured the complainant that they would look into the matter soon. The complainant received a letter dated 12.7.1990 from Colombia National Bank that the documents sent to them have not been received. The complainant received another fax message from alternative buyer on 9.8.1990 informing the complainant that they have still not received any documents. In spite of having brought the fax messages to the notice of O. P. No.1, O. P. No.1 is alleged to have failed to take any steps and did not respond to several letters written by the complainant in this regard. For the first time the O. P. No.1 informed the complainant on 22.12.1990 that the reply from O. P. Nos.2 and 3 was still awaited. Ultimately on 10.1.1999 the O. P. No.1 informed the complainant that the aforesaid documents were lost in transit. The complainant has alleged that the O. Ps. handled the documents in most irresponsible and negligent manner and the consignment could not be released by the Customs Authority causing loss to the complainant.