Tamil Nadu

South Chennai

CC/171/2006

Deepa Pannels - Complainant(s)

Versus

Marersk Logistic India Pvt Ltd., - Opp.Party(s)

Sathish Parasaran

05 Dec 2017

ORDER

                                                                        Date of Filing :   05.01.2005

                                                                        Date of Order :   05.12.2017

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTE REDRESSAL FORUM, CHENNAI (SOUTH)

     2^nd Floor, Frazer Bridge Road, V.O.C. Nagar, Park Town, Chennai-3

 

PRESENT: THIRU. M.MONY, B.Sc., L.L.B. M.L.,                     : PRESIDENT            

                  TMT. K.AMALA, M.A. L.L.B.,                                 : MEMBER I

             DR. T.PAUL RAJASEKARAN, M.A ,D.Min.PGDHRDI, AIII,BCS : MEMBER II                

C.C.NO.171/2006

TUESDAY THIS  5^TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2017

 

M/s. Deepa Panels,

Rep. by its Mr.Pradeep Chirakkal,

No.48, Varaharajapuram,

Trunk Road, Poonamallee,

Chennai 600 056.                                                             Complainant

 

                                                                   Vs

1.  M/s. Maersk India Pvt. Ltd.,

Door No.25/26, Prince Towers,

College Road, Nungambakkam,

Chennai 600 006.

 

2. M/s. Hong Kong and Shanghal

Banking Corporation Ltd.,

No.52/60, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

P.O.Box 128,

Mumbai 400 001.                                                     Opposite parties.

 

Counsel for Complainant            :    M/s. Satish Parasaran & another               

Counsel for opposite party-1      :   M/s. King and Partridge & another  

Counsel for opposite party-2      :   M/s. Bala Kumar

                                                         Chandrasekharan & other   

 

ORDER

THIRUMATHI.K.AMALA,           MEMBER-I

 This complaint is filed by the complainant against the opposite parties  to pay a sum of  USD 16872.00 which is about Rs.7,84,548 being the  value of the goods together with a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being other charges incurred in respect of the shipment  together with interest calculated at the rate of 18% and to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for mental agony and to pay cost of the complaint.

1.  The averment of the complaint in brief are as follows:

         The complainant submit that  a purchaser from Spain approached his representative for placing a purchase order.  It was agreed that the order would be dispatched as soon as the buyer opened letters of credit for the three consignments.  On 27.3.2004, the  complainant received a Letter of Credit bearing No.0430922C10400181, advised through the 2^nd opposite party followed by another Letter of Credit bearing No.0430922C10400180 on 31.3.2004 advised through the 2^nd opposite party, both for an amount of USD 16872.00 each.  The issuing bank for both Letters of Credit was Caja De Ahorros De Murcia, Juan Carios 1, S/N Murcia, Spain M/s. Olympic Textile the buyer, confirmed their order for two consignments and requested shipment of the goods.  The complainant shipped the goods through the first opposite party from Chennai port to Cartagena port, which is the port  of delivery, on 21.4.2004.  At that point of time, in the aftermath of the port strike in Chennai, there was a shortage of empty 20ft containers and hence the quantities of both the orders were shipped together in one 40 ft. container bearing unit TTNU5218272, as the goods were same against both  the orders, on 21.4.2004 under two separate bills of Lading bearing No.MAAK15141 and MAA833669 both dated 22.4.2004.    The complainant was of the belief that the delivery would be made against both the bills of lading.   The shipment had arrived at Cartagena terminal, Cartagena, Spain on 28.5.2004.    

2.     Further the complainant state that  on 2.7.2004, the complainant’s bank, Canara Bank, Karinganad 679 309 Palghat Dist., Kerala informed the complainant that the documents relating to the Letter of Credit No.0430922C10400180 has been returned by the buyer’s bank in Spain, informing them that the applicant did not accept documents because of ‘discrepancies” in the documents presented.   The complainant, to his utter shock and dismay was informed by the buyer that the buyer had opened only one Letter of credit bearing No.0430922C10400181 for USD 16,872.00 and that contrary to the confirmation received from the advising bank, the  2^nd opposite party, Letter of Credit bearing No.0430922C10400180 was not opened.  Despite issuing several communications dated 7.7.2004, 9.7.2004, and 13.7.2004 and also having spoken over the telephone, the 2^nd opposite party was not forthcoming with any information regarding the validity of the disputed letter of Credit on which they had advised the complainant which only shows their callousness and indifference towards the complainants and they remain incommunicado.  It is evident from the 2^nd opposite party’s stance that they are only trying to delay the issue than provide any efficacious remedy.    

3.     The complainant further contended that the 1^st opposite party had allowed the entire container to leave the port premises and had further allowed the consignee himself to strip the container though they claim that only goods which is subject matter of the Bill of Lading No.MAAK15141 were allowed to be taken delivery of.  This act of the 1^st opposite party completely shook the complainant.   The complainant fears that  even the goods that were subject matter of the second Bill of Lading may also have been taken partial or full delivery of by the consignee.    The complainant humbly states that on further enquiry it was ascertained that the container was released on 28.5.2004 against production of a single Bill of Lading bearing No.MAAK15141 and the container was towed to the buyer’s premises, striped off 249 cartons pertaining to the Bill of Lading No.MAAK15141 alone and the balance quantity was transferred into a 20 ft container and the same was placed at the disposal of the custom authority, who had fixed auction proceeding from 1^st of August 2004.   The 1^st opposite party ought not have allowed the buyer to move the container but should have delivered only that part of the consignment which was specified in the Bill of Lading No.MAAK15141 and retained the balance quantity with them in the absence of the second Bill of Lading.    The  1^st opposite party, in failing to inform the complainant of this crucial incident, had deprived off the complainant from taking adequate steps not to allow the most unfortunate incident to take place  and to ensure that demurrage did not accrue on the shipment.    

4.     The complainant humbly states that the first opposite party did not bother to inform the complainants about the  situation of their goods.  The risk of auction was never communicated to the complainant.    The 1^st opposite party is wholly responsible for such act.   The complainant issued a legal notice on the 2^nd opposite party through their counsel on 14.8.2004.  The 2^nd opposite party sent a reply dated 23.8.2004 in which they again reconfirmed that they had received two Letters of Credit transmissions under different Letter of Credit numbers and that they would send a message to the issuing bank regarding this for their confirmation that two Letters of Credit were issued.    The complainant  humbly state that the legal notice was also sent to the 1^st opposite party on 14.8.2004, another notice was sent on 25.9.2004.   Apart from empty promises there are no other remedies forthcoming from the 1^st opposite party.    The complainant state that at the time of effecting the shipment they had issued a Cheque dated 2.5.2004 to the 1^st opposite party towards the Ocean freight charges levied upon them.   In these circumstances the complainant had issued stop payment instructions to their banker with respect  to the cheque issued to the 1^st opposite party and intimated the same  to the 1^st opposite party.  

5.     However the complainant was taken by total surprise when on 14.10.2004 the 1^st opposite party issued a legal notice on the complainant saying that the cheque No.640738 dated 2.5.2004 issued by the complainant was dishonounred, when it was presented on 12.8.2004, with the endorsement payment stopped by the drawer” and also asking the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.1,27,681/- towards freight  and other charges and criminal proceedings will be initiated against the complainant under Section 138 to 141 of the Negotiable instrument Act.   A reply to their notice was sent on 8.11.2004.  It is in fact the complainant who has a claim against the 1^st opposite party for having  acted high handedly and negligently in permitting the removal of the entire consignment, which was covered by two separate Bills of Lading, by the consignee who was in possession of only one Bill of Lading.    In this case, it is the 1^st opposite party who has to compensate the complainant and hence they have no legally enforceable debt.    The complainant humbly state that the shipment of the two separate consignments of goods was made only on the advice from the 2^nd opposite party, the advising bank.    The complainant most humbly submits that the present business is the sole livelihood of the complainant.    Further the services of opposite parties have been availed by remitting valuable consideration and for self-employment.     As such the act of the opposite parties amounts to deficiency in service which caused mental agony and hardship to the complainant.  Hence this complaint is filed.

6.    The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the  1^st opposite party is as follows:

      The  1^st opposite party denies each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.    The above complaint has been filed by Deepa Panels said to be a Partnership firm registered in Chennai and doing business in the manufacturing and exporting of hammocks.  The complainant has to put to strict proof about the status of the firm and the competency of it signatory who signed the complaint.    The said cargo in dispute was shipped / exported from Chennai to Spain for the complainant firm’s business purpose and admittedly the said transaction is a commercial one. The dispute alleged in the complaint is pertaining to a commercial transaction shipment of cargo and hence the said complaint is not maintainable and this District Forum is not the proper forum to agitate such a dispute and hence the said complaint has only to be dismissed in limine  without going into the merits of the case.    The said complaint is barred by limitation the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and under the Bill of  Ladings terms.   Under the Indian Carriage of goods by Sea Act, Schedule III, Article 3 and clause 6 in any event the carrier and the ship shall be discharged from all liability in respect of loss or damage unless the suit is brought within one year after the delivery of the goods or the date when the goods should have been delivered.    As per the statute and the settled principles of law, the carrier cannot be sued after one year from the date on which the goods were delivered or the date when goods ought to have delivered.  Thus it is admittedly clear that the above complaint is filed before this Forum after the period of one year which is the period fixed under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act and there is  no provision to condone the delay or claim benefit of limitation Act.  

7.     It is respectfully submitted that this Forum has no jurisdiction to entertain this complaint as per the relevant clause No.26 of the Bill of lading.  If US (COGSA) Carriage of Goods by Sea Act applies only United States Federal Court of the Southern District on New York is to have exclusive jurisdiction to hear all disputes in respect of the bill of lading and in all other case, the law and jurisdiction of the court is restricted as per clause 26 of the Bills of lading only to English High Court and no other court can entertain a complaint pertaining to any dispute connecting the above Bills of lading.    The bills of lading was singed by Maersk  India Pvt. Ltd only in the capacity as the agents of A.P. Moller Maersk A/s trading as Maersk Sealand and the actual carrier who carried the disputed cargo and its agents are not made a party to the complaint and complaint is bad for non joinder of necessary parties.   The High Court of Bombay vide its order in the Company Petition No.862 to 867 of 2005 connected with Company Application No.756 to 770 of 2005 has allowed the application whereby the 1^st opposite party Maersk Logistics India Pvt. Ltd has been amalgamated with Maersk India Pvt. Ltd copy of the order passed by High court at Bombay pertaining to amalgamation to Maersk Logistics India Pvt. Ltd with Mersk India Pvt. Ltd. Is also filed.   Without prejudice to the above contentions it is respectfully submitted that the Bill of Lading was signed by Maersk India Pvt. Ltd only in the capacity as the agents of the principal carrier A.P. Moller Maersk A/s. trading as Maersk Sealand, though both the agents and the principals are not made a party under section 230 of the Indian Contract Act.   If the name  of the Principal is disclosed, the agents have no liability on account of any claim raised against such principal.   Therefore the above complaint / suit wont lie even otherwise against the Maersk India Pvt. Ltd who signed the bills of lading only in the capacity as the agents of actual carrier.    The 1^st opposite party herein  handed over the carriers  Bills of Lading to the shipper after collecting the freight charges Rs.1,27,681/- for the shipment vide cheque issued by the shipper / complainant and the said cheque was subsequently when presented on 12.8.2004 dishonoured for the reason “payment stopped by drawer” vide return Memo dated  8.9.2004.   The contention of the complainant that the 2^nd Cargo was delivered without 2^nd Bill of lading MAA833669 and the complainant sustained heavy loss and damages stands nullified and the claim of the complainant has to be rejected with cost.    The complainant issued a cheque for Rs.1,27,681/- to the 1^st opposite party  towards the freight and other charges and the same has been returned dishonoured as the complainant had stopped the payment deliberately by issuing a stop payment  instructions to their bank so as to cheat the 1^st opposite party.   The complainant has not paid the so called service charges for the above service of shipment of their cargo from Chennai to Spain’.  For the sole reason that the complainant has not paid the service charges or any charges or consideration for the service availed from 1^st opposite party they cannot claim or agitate before this forum as a Consumer under the purview of the Consumer Protection Act.   The consignee surrendered only one bill of lading MASK 15141 at the 1^st instance the container was released from the port on 28.5.2004 and 249 cartons of cargo covered under the said bill of lading MAAK15141 was stripped destuffed from the container  retaining the balace quantity with the carriers agent as the consignee failed to surrender the 2^nd bill of lading MAA833669.    However, it is admitted by the complainant that they have stopped the payment of freight and other charges  and as of now the complainant has not pad a single paisa to the 1^st opposite party or to their principals or agents at Port of Loading or discharge Port, towards the freight and other charges for carrying the container from  Chennai to Spain.    8.    It is true that the complainant had entrusted the cargo for shipment covered under 2 separate bill of lading from Chennai to Spain with the 1^st opposite party.  As admitted in the correspondence of the complainant, since the consignee opened only two separate letters of credit, both the consignments were consolidated and shipped in a single 40 ft.  container bearing No.TTNU5218272.  It is also admitted in the correspondences / letters of the complainant that there was a dispute with the complainant and consignee in respect of one letter of credit and as instructed the carrier’s agent at destination delivered only 1^st shipment 249 cartons covered under one bill of lading MAK15141 and 249 cartons covered under the 2^nd bill of ladings No.MAA833669 was stuffed into another container TTNU5218272 and moved to Cartageno terminal pending to be customs cleared and delivery by the owner of goods on surrendering the bill of lading.

9.     The complainant himself has admitted that he has not paid shipment charges to the shipping company and cheque has been dishonoured as they have given instruction to ‘stop payment’ and it is surprising to note that they have claimed refund of shipment charges.   The complainant is not entitled to get any amount towards damages as alleged in the complaint.   For the above reasons the above complaint filed by the complainant is only to be dismissed without going into the merits.

       

10.    The brief averments in the Written Version filed by the  2^nd  opposite party is as follows:

The  2^nd  opposite party denies each and every allegations except those that are specifically admitted herein.     The opposite party states that the complainant is not a consumer as per Sec. 2 (d) (i) and (ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.  The complainant is a commercial establishment and commercially transacted with their buyer with an intention to make profit.  Therefore using the services of the opposite party in commercial transactions by the complainant with an intention to earn profit will debar them from maintaining the complaint before this Forum.  Therefore the complaint is not maintainable in law.   The complainant  has not impleaded the buyer who had defaulted in the payment to the complainant.   Therefore the complaint is not maintainable for nonjoinder of necessary parties.    It is normal practice that the message received through SWIFT system require no confirmation.  But in the present case the opposite party had approached the buyer’s bank on 9.7.2004 and also sent a reminder dated 10.7.2004 for confirmation, both of which were not acknowledged or which responded by them.  This was immediately intimated to the complainant by the opposite party.  It is further stated that the complainant had not produced any document to show that the buyer had not opened the two letters of credit in favour of the complainant.   There was also no delay on the part of the opposite party in responding to the query of complainant. 

11.    The opposite party submit that the role of advising Bank i.e. the opposite party is that they transmitted the Letters of Credit to the beneficiary i.e. the complainant as the buyer’s bank had no branch office or communicating office in India.   The beneficiary i.e. the complainant has the option of either sending the documents through the opposite party after shipment or routing it through their own bankers.   In the instant case the complainant did not send the documents through the opposite party after shipment and no charges were paid to the opposite party for the same.    The opposite party did  receive two Letters of Credit for a value of USD 16872.00 from the buyers bank, which were forwarded to the irrelevant when especially the Letter of credit was not rejected for want of authenticity.   The claim of deficiency in service against the opposite party is unfounded and frivolous.   The opposite party states that the complainant has not suffered any heavy loss due to the opposite party.   The opposite  party states that as an Advising Bank the opposite party had rendered its service without any irregularity and laxity.   The present transaction is purely commercial and not for the self employment and livelihood of the complainant.    The opposite party therefore prays that this forum may be pleased to dismiss the complaint with exemplary costs and thus render justice.

12.    In order to prove the averments of the complaint, the complainant has filed proof affidavit as his evidence and documents Ex.A1 to Ex.A22 marked.  Proof affidavit of opposite parties filed and no documents  marked on the side of the opposite parties. 

13.    The points for the consideration is: 

          1. Whether the complaint  is maintainable before this forum

             under the C. P. Act 1986.  ?

2. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.7,84,548/-  towards the value of the goods and a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- being shipment charges with interest at the rate of 18% p.a as prayed for ?

3. Whether the complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- towards mental agony with cost as prayed for?

14.    POINTS 1 to 3:

        Both parties filed their respective written arguments.    Perused the complaint, written version, proof affidavit and documents.   Admittedly the complainant is engaged in the business of manufacturing and exporting of hammocks.   The contention of the complainant is  that a purchaser from Spain approached his representative for placing a purchase order, after due negotiations it was agreed that the he would place an order for purchase of three  20 ft container of hammocks as soon as  the buyer opened letters of credit for the three consignments.   On 27.3.2004 & 31.3.2004 the complainant received a letter of credit through 2^nd opposite party, the issuing bank for both Letters of Credit amount of USD Rs.16,872 each.   Thereafter the complainant supplied the goods through the 1^st opposite party from Chennai Port to Cartagena port.   Due to 20 ft containers were not available both the orders were placed in one single,   40 ft container under the separate  Bills of lading.   The shipment arrived in  Spain on 28.5.2004.   But the bank informed that his documents were returned by buyer bank due to discrepancies”.   To his shock buyer informed that he opened only one letter of credit for USD 16,872.00 contrary to 2^nd opposite party advise.  Even after repeated request and letters the 2^nd opposite party not given any information  about the validity of disputed letter of credit.

15.    The complainant further contended that the 1^st opposite party allowed the consignee to strip the container though they claim that only goods which is subject matter of the Bill of lading No.MAAK15141 were allowed  to take delivery.  So the 1^st opposite party  allowed to take delivery of entire  Cargo so that the complainant  fears that the second bill of lading goods might have taken false  delivery  by the consignee.    On enquiry it was found that on  production of one Bill of lading bearing No.MAAK151141 container was towed at buyers premises, was placed at disposal of custom authority who fixed auction proceeding.  Since the buyer claimed to goods of only one bill of lading 1^st opposite party ought to have delivered only the part of the consignment and retained balance with them.   His bank informed that buyer took only one part of dispatched goods, 1^st opposite party did not inform in time, If he had done so demurrage would not accrued on the shipment.  The mistake committed by the 1^st opposite party  in putting entire goods by two distinct Bill of Lading at the disposal of buyer so the original goods may have been replaced by fake or dummy goods.  But the 1^st opposite party did not bother to inform in time but belatedly informed that goods would be auctioned.  The tampering of entire consignment by buyer, is alleged and 1^st opposite party is wholly responsible. 

16.    The complainant contended that the 2^nd opposite party was also silent, therefore the complainant issued legal notice to the opposite parties.  The advising Bank ought to have saved from heavy losses due to sending unnecessary shipment of goods.  The complainant sent goods under bonafide impression that two Letter of credit had been issued as advised by 2^nd opposite party. The complainant is at the risk of losing entire shipment.   The complainant further contended that he had availed the services of opposite parties by paying service charges.  But it is seen that the complainant had given stop payment to the cheque issued by him.   On the advice of 2^nd opposite party for two Letter of credit two orders were booked on the 1^st opposite party carrier.  Whereas it is also seen that the 1^st opposite party also issued notice to the complainant u/s 138 of N.I. Act.  Hence the complainant was constrained to file the complaint seeking a sum of USD 16872.00 about Rs.784548/- from the opposite parties with Rs.1,50,000/- towards shipment charges. 

17.    The 1^st opposite party contended that the complaint is not maintainable. Since the complainant is a partnership firm and the transaction is commercial in nature.   Further this Forum have no jurisdiction but only in V.S. Federal Court, New York.  As per Clause  26 the bill of lading.  The 1^st opposite party only agent by the company, registered in USA.  The actual carrier is A.P. Moller Maersk A/s trading as Maersk Sealand. The Bill of lading is signed by Mersk India Pvt. Ltd.,  for which the 1^st  opposite party is amalgamated.  Therefore the complainant is non joinder of parties.   However all the transactions were made only by the 1^st opposite party and had signed the bill of lading as agents.    The contention of the 1^st opposite party that  as per the statute and the settled principles of law, the carrier cannot be sued after one year from the date on which the goods were delivered or the date when goods ought to have delivered  is not acceptable since complaint is filed within the limitation period under the Consumer Protection Act.    Therefore the complaint is barred by limitation is not acceptable.  

18.    The 1^st opposite party admitted that they received the booking of the Cargo and arranged shipment. The 1^st opposite party contended that the shipment was discharged of Spain but Cargo covered under Bill of lading was returned for production of original Bill of lading and only Maresk India signed Bill of lading.   It is also admitted by the 1^st opposite party that they collected freight charges.   The complainant contention that he sustained huge loss since the 1^st opposite party is not a party to collect Rs.127681/- paid as freight charges is not acceptable, since the complainant had given stop payment towards the cheque issued by him. 

19.    However Cargo entrusted to 1^st opposite party is admitted 2^nd Cargo Bill of lading No.MAA833669 was duly delivered to consignee is proved by document.    But no payment made by the complainant since the buyer  claimed one goods under  only  one  Bill  of  lading  and  he  made  stop  payment.   On  perusal  of  Ex.A8  &  Ex.A12  invoice  is  raised  for  bill  of  lading.  It  is also

seen that the 1^st opposite party had not produced any document for amalgamation.  It is seen that since shipment was made for  Bill of lading.  The buyer ought to have paid the amount.  But he did not pay the amount Ex.A35 shown that 2^nd opposite party received from the complainant for shipping goods for two letters of credit.

20.    The contention of the 1^st opposite party is that the complaint is not within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Forum is not acceptable since the disputed shipment was made from Chennai to Spain on 22.4.2004 and hence complaint was filed within the territorial jurisdiction of this Forum.   The 2^nd opposite party contended that the complainant had not impleaded the buyer.  In the present case the opposite party had approached the buyers bank on 9.7.2004 and sent a reminder dated 10.7.2004 for confirmation and intimated to the complainant no service were paid by the complainant and there is no deficiency in service.    

21.    The 2^nd opposite party contended that the complainant is a commercial establishment and commercially transacted with their buyer with an intention to make profit.   Therefore using the services of the opposite party in commercial transactions by the complainant with an intention to earn profit will debar them from maintaining the complaint before this Forum.   Though the complainant pleaded that the business was done for eking his livelihood the entire transactions and documents clearly establishes that it is commercial transaction.  

22.    Considering the facts and circumstances of the case this Forum is of the considered view that this is a clear case of complainant availing the services of the opposite party for commercial transaction.  As such the complaint is not maintainable under the  purview of the Consumer Protection Act.   Therefore the complainant is not a consumer and the complainant is not entitled to any relief sought for in the complaint and the points are answered accordingly. 

        In the result the complaint is dismissed.  No cost.

            Dictated by the Member-I to the Assistant, taken down, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by the Member-I and pronounced by us in the open Forum on this the  5^th     day  of  December  2017.

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.

Complainants’ side documents:

 

Ex.A1-              -  Copy of container information.

Ex.A2- 26.3.2004  -  Copy of documentary credit.

Ex.A3- 27.3.2004  -  Copy of New DC advise.

Ex.A4- 22.4.2003  -  Copy of  letter of complainant.

Ex.A5-               -  Copy of policy from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.,

Ex.A6- 31.3.2004  -  Copy of documentary credit advise.

Ex.A7-                  -  Copy of covering letter for foreign documentary credit.

Ex.A8- 3.3.2004    -  Copy of invoice.

Ex.A9- 22.4.2004  -  Copy of bill of lading.

Ex.A10- 16.4.2004         -  Copy of weight list.

Ex.A11-                 -  Copy of insurance.

Ex.A12- 3.3.2004  -  Copy of invoice.

Ex.A13- 22.4.2004         -  Copy of bill of lading

Ex.A14- 14.8.2004         -  Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A15- 20.8.2004         -  Copy of letter from Canara Bank.

Ex.A16- 23.8.2004 -  Copy of letter from HSBC.

Ex.A17- 25.9.2004         -  Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A18-               -  Copy of Ack.

Ex.A19- 28.9.2004         -  Copy of letter from Maersk sealand.

Ex.A20- 13.10.2004- Copy of letter from complainant.

Ex.A21- 14.10.2004- Copy of legal notice.

Ex.A22- 8.11.2004         - Copy of reply notice.

 

Opposite parties’ side documents:      Nil

 

 

MEMBER-I                        MEMBER-II                             PRESIDENT.