TTK PHARMA LIMITED Vs. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE complainant received an order from the 4th opposite party for supply of 4992 bottles of "Trimcap", an Ayurvedic Dietary supplement. The complainant entrusted the said goods for carriage to Wellington in New Zealand with the 1st opposite party. The payment for the said goods was to be made through the 2nd opposite party who was opened a Letter of Credit. The complainant lodged the documents for negotiation with the 3rd opposite party. The 4th opposite party who placed the orders ought to have made payment to the 2nd opposite party for obtaining the endorsement in the Airway Bill which in turn has to be surrendered to the 1st opposite party for taking delivery. The 3rd opposite party retained the documents without any credit being given. The complainant made several requests to the opposite parties and wrote reminders. While so, only in 1996 the 3rd opposite party informed that the 4th opposite party had failed to honour its commitment. The complainant also was shocked to learn that the goods have been delivered to the 4th opposite party on 10.10.1994 itself. Without receiving the money, the 2nd opposite party has authorized to realize the goods and has committed breach of trust. The 4th opposite party has been equally negligent. The 1st opposite party has also been negligent in having delivered the goods to the 4th opposite party without insisting upon the production of original Airway Bill. Therefore, the complaint is lodged for recovery of the value of the consignment along with damages.

(2.) THE 1st opposite party has stated in their version as follows : The complaint is barred by limitation. There is no deficiency in service. The consignee shown in the Airway Bill was M/s. Westpac Banking Corporation, Wellington. The notified party has to make payment to the consignee Bank and get a Bank release for being handed over to the 1st opposite party. The notified party made payment to Westpac Banking Corporation, obtained a Bank release and forwarded the same to the 1st opposite party at New Zealand who delivered the consignment to Australian Trade Link. Thus the delivery was effected as per the terms of the Airway Bill. There is no deficiency in service. The established procedure was followed by this opposite party. If the 4th opposite party had not made payment to the complainant s Banker, it is not a deficiency on the part of this opposite party. Even otherwise, no loss has been caused to the complainant. There has been no wrongful delivery. This opposite party is not liable to compensate the complainant in any manner.

(3.) THE 3rd opposite party has stated in their version as follows: They are not a necessary party to the complaint. There is no allegation of deficiency in service as against them. This opposite party executed the document and forwarded the same for collection. The 2nd opposite party did not inform this opposite party that the 4th opposite party failed to honour the commitment. Hence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.