National Consumer Disputes Redressal Container Corporation Of India Ltd. vs U.K. Paints Industries on 27 July, 2006 Equivalent citations: IV(2006)CPJ144(NC) ORDER B.K. Taimni, Member 1. Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission where the respondent/complainant M/s. U.K. Paints Industries, had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant Container Corporation of India Ltd. 2. Very briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant imported 60M. Tonnes of Titanium Dioxide valued at Rs. 1,99,000 from Singapore. The consignment reached safely at Bombay and was transported to Inland Container Depot at Tuglakabad, owned and administered by the appellant. The goods were contained in 3 containers. At the time of taking delivery by the complainant it was found that part of goods were pilfered while the containers were in the custody of the appellant. In view of this, the complainant claimed indemnification.... Notice was issued to the appellant and when the matter was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusing the material on record passed the order, operative part of the order reads as under: For the foregoing reasons, the complaint is partly allowed. The opposite party is directed to pay the following amounts: (i) Value of the goods lost/stolen/pilfered: Rs. 1,78,307.00 (ii) Value of the customs duty paid: Rs. 1,76,488.00 (iii) Interest @ 18% per annum on the above total amount w.e.f. 19.1.95, the date of joint, survey when the shortage was ascertained till date of payment. (iv) Rs. 5,000 as costs. The above order should be complied with Within six weeks of the receipt of a copy of this order failing which the complainant shall be entitled to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 27. A copy of the order be conveyed to the parties. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us. 4. Mainly two pleas were taken before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Firstly, that as per provisions of Section 99 of the Indian Railways Act, no complaint can be filed against them and secondly, the complainant is not a 'Consumer' as there was no privy of contract between the complainant and the appellant. 5. As far as first leg of the argument is concerned, we have carefully gone through Section 99 of the Indian Railways Act as also Condition 3 allegedly appearing in the Inland Way Bill issued by the appellant. This is not in dispute that the appellant is not 'Railways'. They are registered as a company whose administrative Ministry is the Ministry of Railways. Just because the administrative Ministry of a PSU, registered as company is a certain Ministry, in this case, Railways, it will not attract the provision of Railway Act for the simple reason that the unit is registered as a Company by virtue of which it is a separate sanctity. As far as Condition 3 allegedly contained in the 'Inland Way Bill' is concerned, after going through the documents made available to us, we find ourselves unable to read this condition for the simple reason that it is printed in such a 'fine print' that it is hardly legible and readable and as per Judgment of this Commission in the case of "Blue Dart Express Ltd. v. Stephen Livera RP No. 393 of 1997 decided on 14.12.2001", any material printed in such fine print will be held against the person who fine prints such a condition, in view of which we are unable to sustain this plea of the appellant. 6. Corning to the question of the Privity of Contract/the complainant being a 'consumer' or otherwise, we have simply to peruse the Inland Way Bill which clearly shows that the freight was to be paid (TO PAY) at ICD, Tuglakabad and we are satisfied that this freight was paid by the complainant, in the light of this, by virtue of provision of Section 2(1)(d)(ii) of the Consumer Protection Act, the complainant being a 'beneficiary' would very much fall within the purview being a 'Consumer'. Hence we see no merit in this plea as well. 7. When we see the reliefs granted by the State Commission, we find that it has been granted under two heads. One is the value of goods lost/stolen/pilfered. We are not going into this part. The second item relates to the value of customs duty paid amounting to Rs. 1,76,488. The learned Counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to the Section 13 of the Customs Act which reads as follows: 13. Duty on Pilfered GoodsIf any imported goods are pilfered after the unloading thereof and before the proper officer has made an order for clearance for home consumption or deposit in a warehouse, the importer shall not be liable to pay the duty leviable on such goods except where such goods are restored to the importer after pilferage. 8. A plain reading of this section will make it clear that in view of the pilferage the complainant should not have paid 'custom duty' for the pilfered goods as