LexVIRENDER KHULLAR versus AMERICAN CONSOLIDATION SERVICES LTD. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E . F G H [2016) 4 S.C.R. 504 VIRENDER KHULLAR v. AMERICAN CONSOLIDATION SERVICES LTD. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4861 of2012) AUGUST 16, 2016 [R.K. AGRAWAL AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Agents liability - Applicability of s.230, Contract Act, 1.872 - Defence to agents u/ s.230, Contract Act (Agents not personally bound by contracts on behalf of principal) in cases under Consumer Protection Act - Appellants entrusted consignment to R-1 (the Agent of R-3) who handed it over to R-4 (the export carrier) for delivery to R-2 (the Bank) - R-3 was the actual buyer (subsidiary of orie Coronet Group Inc.) which had to first make payment to R-2 and only then 1he goods were to be released in its favour - However, instead of R-2 it was R-3 ll'hich directly received the delivery of consignments without making any payment either to R-2 or the appellants - Appellants OJ]_ non-receipt of payment filed complaint seeking compensation, before NCDRC, alleging change in name of consignee by R-I, from R-2 to R-3, as a result of which the consignment was delivered directly to R-3 instead of R-2 - NCDRC by impugned order held only R-3 liable to pay compensation - Held: R-1 was simply acting as an agent of Coronet Group Inc. with whom the appellants entered into contract, as such, in view of defence u/s. 230 of Contract Act, 1872 it cannot be held personally liable to enforce the contract between its principal and the appellants - It is only R-3 (subsidiary of Coronet Group Inc.) which was liable, as it received the delivery without depositing price of the goods with R-2 - No infirmity in the impugned order - Consumer Laws - Contract Act, 1872. Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 Admittedly, the goods in question were handed over by the appellants to Respondent No.1. But there is neither any pleading nor proof that the appellants paid any sum for transportation or any other service to Respondent No.1 at the time the goods were handed over to it or subsequent thereto. It has been shown on behalf of Respondent No.I that Respondent 504 ' VIRENDER KHULLAR v. AMERICAN CONSOLIDATION 505 SERVICES LTD. No.1 was simply an agent of the buyer with whom the appellants A entered into contract. The consignment was received by Respondent No. 3 Zip Code Inc, a part of Coronet Group Inc. [Para 11] [510-G-H] 1.2 Since, Respondent No. 1 was simply acting as an agent of Coronet Group Inc, thus, in view of S. 230 of Contract Act, 8 1872 it cannot be held· personally liable to enforce the contract entered between its principal and the appellants. Defence under S.230 of Contract Act, 1872 is available in the cases under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by the agents of the t>rincipal with whom the complainant had the agreement. [Para 13] [511-F, G-H] C Marine Container Services South Pvt. Ltd. v. Go Go Garments (1998) 3 SCC 247 - relied on. 2. As rightly held by NCDRC, Respondent No. 4 had carried the consignment and delivered the same as per Bill of Lading. There was no contract between appellants and Respondent No. 4. Also Respondent No. 2 Bank could not be held liable as the amount was not collected from the consignee, as such there was no question of remitting it to appellants/complainants by the Bank. In the circumstances, respondent No, 3 Zip Code Inc, which was subsidiary to Coronet Group Inc, the consignee named in the cargo slips, was the only party which could be held liable for taking delivery without depositing the price of the goods with the Bank. [Para 14] [512-A-C] Case Law Reference D E (1?98) 3 SCC 247 relied on Para 13 F CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 4861 of2012. From the Judgment and Order dated 22.03.2012 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Original Complaint No. 89 and 90of1995 G WITH C. A. No. 9217 of2012. H. L. Tiku, Sr. Adv., Ms. Yashmeet Kaur, Ms. Arti Singh, Advs. for the Appellant. H 506 A B c D E F G H SUPREME COURT REPORTS [20 l 6] 4 S.C.R. Vikramjit Banerjee, Kuna! Chatterji, Amit Mishra, Ms. Hima Lawrence, Keshav Roy Chowdhury, Ms. Maitrayee Bane1jee, Advs. for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. These appeals are directed against common judgment and order dated March 22, 2012, passed by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi (for short "NCDRC") in Original Complaint N
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.