Transportation of goods
C.B.Sharma
(Querist) 07 November 2011
This query is : Resolved
I will like to know whether the Consignment note issued by a carrier to the consignor at the time of booking as a negotiable instrument having value equal to the declared value of the consignment.
Further is the transporter justified in delivering the consignment to the consignee without submission of the consignee copy without any reference to the consigner
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 November 2011
Its a repeated one judging the point from different angle.
you can continue but in the same thread but not by opening a new thread.
i asked you questions there/i remember,you did not reply.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 07 November 2011
Mr prabhakar singh has good memory .
C.B.Sharma
(Querist) 08 November 2011
We had instituted a case in consumenr court. the respondent claims that when the CN was in the name of the Consignee, the goods were delivered on his application in absence of the CN without any need to refer to us.
Our challenge is treating the CN as a negotiable instrument
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 08 November 2011
Dear Mr.Sharma ji!
Since you did not start with clean hands and ate my hours in your previous thread ;
and now your revelation is otherwise hence i feel unable to advise you.
on my part it would be more than a sin if i
advise you.
Goodby.
Guest
(Expert) 08 November 2011
@ Prabhakar ji,
It is evident that some businessmen try to take undue advantage of the free advice of the experts while on the other hand they also try to conceal the facts, which are necessary for proper advice.
Guest
(Expert) 08 November 2011
Dear Mr. Sharma,
At first, a vital question arises, how the consignee could get the innformation about consignment having been sent to him through a particular transporter when you have not sent the consignee copy to him?
Secondly, do you think the consignee was obliged to pay unnecessary damurrage charges for late release of consignment when you did not send the consignee copy of the consignment note to him?
Third, do you think the transporter should have kept the consignment unecessarily occupying his space indefinitely to become hurdle in his day to day business and in the meanwhile that should start getting damaged on account of which you could also drag him to the consumer forum or the court of law to claim damages?
Forth, you could well have sent the consignment note through some bank, so that the bank would have realised the amount of consignment from the consignee before release of that.
TO BE FRANK, from all these aspects in view, the case seems to me to be of a clear and intentional conspiracy against the transporter on your part in connivance with the consignee to extract money from the transporter in the name of deficiency in his service.
I am of the view, the transporter was well within his rights to deliver the consignment to the adressee without reference to the consignor, when the consignor had already targetted the consignment to be delivered by addressing the consignee without any specific instructions to the transporter on the booking form, e.g., "not to be delivered without surrender of consignment note" or "without consulting the consignor".
C.B.Sharma
(Querist) 08 November 2011
1. we had a continuing business with cobsigner. we used to send the Hundi alongwith the despatch documents to their bank. When on repeated intimation from the bank, the consignee did not retire the documents, the bank returned the documents back to us. In the interim, the consgner approached the transporter and the transporter delivered the goods without the CN.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 08 November 2011
I AM DOING THE SIN THEN.
THE CARRIER DID NOT HAVE RIGHT TO RELEASE
CONSIGNMENT TO THE CONSIGNEE WITHOUT
PRODUCTION OF THE L.R./G.R FROM THE
BANK.THE BANK MIGHT HAVE SENT YOU THE
DOCUMENTS BACK ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER
WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE FILED BEFORE THE
FORUM.
EVEN BY GUESS I GUIDED YOU RIGHTLY.YOU MUST
HAVE TOLD THE TRUTH AT THE VERY BEGINNING
TO SAVE MY TIME.
Guest
(Expert) 08 November 2011
You have not replied my query, how the consignee got the information about despatch of consignment through a particular transporter?
You should know that fragmented information and half baked truth can mislead the experts to give divergent replies merely on their own presumption about the situation, which alternatively can mislead and confuse you.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 08 November 2011
The consignee came to know through Bank which intimated him to retire the LR/GR,but the consignee did not retire the LR/GR from Bank instead got the consignment by rapport illegally from carrier is evident from his last post.That is why i answered him despite oath.
Guest
(Expert) 08 November 2011
@Prabhakar Singh ji.
Probably, we are are not supposed to reply merely on our own presumsumtion. I am unable to find anything in the following part of the reply of the querist that may suggest that the particulars of the transporters were intimated by the bank:
"When on repeated intimation from the bank, the consignee did not retire the documents, the bank returned the documents back to us. In the interim, the consgner approached the transporter and the transporter delivered the goods without the CN."
The querist states merely the incidence of non-retirement of documents by the consignee.
Hope I am not wrong in my statement or guess.
C.B.Sharma
(Querist) 08 November 2011
Thanks sir,
There was no intent to withhold any factual information from you. Our Case summary is encllosed for your kind ref.
