AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal has been filed by the complainant against the order of District Forum dated 26.7.90 by which the complaint of complainant was dismissed.
BRIEFLY, the facts are that the complainant firm imported a consignment of 6 exhaust analysers and testers from U.S.A. under the A.W.B. No. 220-90688006. The consignment was packed into 6 different cartons which were placed in a single skid/pallet measuring 48" x 29". It is alleged that the airlines wrongly issued airways bill for 6 cartons. In fact the bill should have been of 6 cartons on one skid. When the goods arrived in India, the same were deposited with the defendant. The delivery of the goods could not be taken by the complainant within the prescribed period and consequently the defendant claimed demurrage from them. It is pleaded that the demurrage is being charged from the complainant for 6 cartons whereas it should have been charged for one skid only. They however, took delivery of the goods on payment of demurrage claimed by the respondent and filed a complaint before the District Forum for recovery of Rs. 18,450/- charged by the defendant as excess demurrage and Rs. 10,000/- as damage. The complaint was dismissed by the Forum. The complainant has come up in appeal to this commission. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the 6 cartons containing the goods were packed in one skid. Thus it was one skid and not 6 packages all the times one skid/pallet and not six packages. Consequently, it was entitled to charge demurrage for one skid and not for 6 packages.
The learned Counsel for the respondent has argued that the carrier airlines handed over to the respondent for custody against air bill No. 90688006, six packages. The operation was authenticated by IFO of Custom and Carrier airline. The responsibility of the defendant was thus affixed for six packages.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the arguments of both the Counsel. I, however, agree with the contention of the respondent''s Counsel. I have seen the various documents produced by the appellants. In the airway bill in the column of ''handling information'', it is mentioned "marks as addressed one skid (48" x 40" x 20") skid contains 6 cartons". In the column "No. of pieces" digit ''6'' is mentioned. In the document ''bill of entry for home consumption'' in the column of "No. and description of packages" it is shown ''six one skid''. Again in column ''total number of packages (in words) ''the entry made is ''six only (on one skid)'' similar is an entry in the examination report (page 4) prepared by Customs Department. However, there the word used is not skid but pallet. The Counsel for the appellant submitted that the skid and pallet were interchangeable words. Now it is to be seen, what the word ''skid'' means. It has been defined in New Webster''s Dictionary of the English Language, Deluxe Encyclopedic Edition, 1981 ''a low, small, sometimes wheeled platform upon which materials are piled to facilitate handling, a plank, framework or the like on which something rests for storage".
THE word ''pallet'' has been defined in the same dictionary as ''a transportable platform used for the storage or removal of foods''. From a reading of the aforesaid definitions'', it appears that the pallet and skid are flat pieces of wood on which things are piled/accumulated for handling or storage. THEse are not similar to create, which are used for packing the goods. If the packets are placed on the skid and stored in a ware-house, the care-taker has to take care of every packet separately. Thus the responsibility of the warehouse increases. In the ready recknor which has been placed on the record, there is no mention as to how the goods are to be treated, if they have been piled on a skid. I am, therefore, of the view that the packages placed on the skid cannot be treated as one package and the respondent was justified in treating them as 6 packages. The counsel for the respondent has also placed reliance on the letter dated 1.12.89 written by Lufthansa Air to the Deputy General Manager of the defendant requesting him that according to the instructions of the New York Office, the Airways bills be amended and six pieces loaded on a wooden skid should reflect one piece only. No doubt the intention of the writer of the letter appears to be that six packages received by the plaintiff should be treated as one package but that was meant only for air-lifting. That Letter does not bind the respondent. If some concession was given by the carrier to the appellant, the respondent is not bound to give the same concession to them. Faced with this situation the learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the goods were cleared by the Custom Department on 15.11.89. On 16.11.89, the disputed bill was for Rs. 12,650/-. Thereafter, the appellant made a representation against the bill to the authorities. The representation was not decided by the authorities till 22.12.89. Because of that delay the amount of the bill was increased to Rs. 21,650/-. According to the Counsel it was incumbent on the respondent to have disposed of the representation of the appellant at the earliest, so that they would have been saved from paying demurrage for the said period. We have duly considered the matter. Prima facie the argument appeared to be plausible but when it was examined in depth, it was found to be baseless. The representation of the appellant was received by the department on 25th November, 1989. It was rejected by the Deputy General Manager on 30th November, 1989 and on the same date it was communicated to Mr. G. Banerjee representative of the clearing agent. Thus, there was no delay either in the decision of the representation or communication of the same to the complainant''s clearing agent. However, the appellant filed another representation on 2nd December, 1989 which was received by the department on 11th December, 1989. It was not expected of the appellant to go on filing representations one after another. He should have deposited the amount of demurrage after the rejection of earlier representation. Consequently, the contention of the learned Counsel is rejected.
FOR the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in appeal and dismiss the same with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. ______________