A.P. STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

 ATHYDERABAD.

C. C. 32/2005.

Between:

Sameen Ahmed Khan

Managing Director

M/s. Sameen’s Leather Garments Pvt. Ltd.,

5-9-201/2,Chirag Ali Lane

Hyderabad-500 001.1. The Regional Manager

Central Warehousing Corporation

Regional Office-Warehousing Sadan

Behind Gandhi Bhavan

Nampally,Hyderabad.

2. The Regional Manager

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

SnehalathaBuilding,Greenlands Road

Begumpet, Hyderabad.

Counsel for the Appellant:                         

Counsel for the Respondent:                     

QUORUM:

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND EIGHT

Oral Order: (Per Hon’ble Justice D. Appa Rao, President)

              India Illinois,USA.  Hyderabad  

             have been completely damaged, opposite party No. 1 by its letter Dt. 1.2.2002       9.8.2002 they informed that 25%         All this amounts to unfair trade practice.    He sold some of his properties in order to discharge his debts.  

             Illinois,USA.                      

                     and submit its report.    to pay the amount to its clients including the complainant,            retain the amount.      

             Hyderabad   Hyderabad

1.    Whether 

2.    Whether the  

3.    Whether the complainant is entitled to any amount, if so, to what amount?

It is an undisputed fact that the complainant had exported the leather garments worth Rs. 1,09,96,939/-USA      

It is also not in dispute that Hyderabad       

           When CWC     basis.

                The complainant had requested the CWC  struck to its earlier assessment made by letter Dt. 5.12.2002.         requesting not to deduct 25% by letter    

Evidently the entire goods were damaged beyond retrieval as  Leather Technology.                 

Importantly, when      

It is not as though CWC    

CWC in turn 

1)    M/s. Shri Shakti LPG Ltd.,

2)   M/s. Sameen Leather Garments Pvt. Ltd.,

3)    M/s. Bernhard Marking Pvt. Ltd., (in respect of Bond No. 394)

The name of the complainant was also mentioned therein.          could show as to why   

It is    

           CWC is 

In the result,    

         APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

COMPLAINANT

NoneDOCUMENTS MARKED FOR COMPLAINANT:

Ex. A1; 

Ex. A2; 

Ex. A3;

Ex. A4;  

Ex. A5;  

                                     Ex. A6;  

Ex. A7;  

                                     Ex. A8;  

Ex. A9;  

Ex. A10 

Ex. A11;

Ex. A12;  

Ex. A13;  

Ex. A14;  

Ex. A15;  

Ex. A16;  

Ex. A17;  

Ex. A18;  

Ex. A19;  

Ex. A20;  

Ex. A21;  

Ex. A22;  

Ex. A23;  Hyderabad

Ex. A24;  Hyderabad

Ex. A25;  

                                     Hyderabad.

Ex. A26;  

Ex. A27;  

Ex. A28;  

Ex. A29;  Hyderabad

Ex. A30; Hyderabad

Ex. A31; 

Ex. A32;  

Ex. A33;  

Ex. A34;  

Ex. A35;  

Ex. A36;  

Ex. A37;  

Ex. A38;  

Ex. A39;  

Ex. A40;  

Ex. A41;  

DOCUMNTS MARKED FOR OPPOSITE PARTIES :

Ex. B1;         

Ex. B2;    

Ex. B3;  

Ex. B4;    

Ex. B5;    

Ex. B6;    

Ex. B7;    

Ex. B8;         

Ex. B9;     

                                     Dt. 27. 11. 2008