HAMOSONS EXPORTS PVT. LTD. Vs. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 31.08.2010 passed by the Tamil Nadu State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Chennai (in short, 'the State Commission') in Consumer Complaint No. 154/2001 Hamosons Exports Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Singapore Airlines Ltd. by which, complaint was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that complainant/appellant consigned 2720 pieces of Cotton Knitted Fleece Men's Sweat Shirts, packed in 114 cartons, valued at US$ 32688.20, from Chennai to Newyork, through the opposite party/respondent on 4.10.1999, under Airway bill No. 6181671 1940. Under Airway bill, the consignee was Canara Bank, Foreign Department, Chennai and the name of the customer was mentioned as M/s. Apparel Solutions L.L.C.1717, Olive Street, St. Louis, MO63103, USA, and the notified party was M/s. Phoenix International Freight Service Ltd. The customer was to make payment through the consignee bank, obtain the original Airway bill, and other connected documents endorsed in their favour, then to take delivery of the consignment, through their clearing agent. The consignee being the banker of the complainant, had endorsed the documents to the bank of America. Though the complainant waited for the collection of the amount, there was no response, and documents were returned by bank of America, to the complainant's bank, resulting the sum was debited to their account, towards interest charges. A letter was addressed on 16.2.2000, to furnish details, about the status of the consignment for which the opposite party replied that M/s. Phenix International Freight Services Ltd., had cleared and taken delivery of the goods. The delivery, without authorization of the consignee Bank and production of the consignee copy of the Airway bill, was against the established procedure, amounting to unauthorized, irregular delivery, and therefore the opposite party is answerable, for the value of the goods, viz. US$ 32688.20. The customer of the complainant, not only failed to pay the amount, to the complainant, whereas reconsigned the goods, through their forwarding agent, which was informed to the complainant. The complainant informing the development, in order to mitigate the damages, took delivery of the goods, incurring sum of Rs.1,28,806/-. The entire loss sustained by the complainant was due to the deficiency in service / gross negligence of the opposite party, in delivering the consignment, to the notified party, without due authorization by the consignee. Alleging deficiency on the part of OP, complainant filed complaint before State Commission.

(3.) OP resisted complaint and submitted that the shipment entrusted to this opposite party was destined to New York in USA. In the Airway bill, the consignee was mentioned as Canara Bank in Chennai, which had no branch in New York or USA. Therefore, instruction was sought for which the agent informed that party notified in the consignee column of Airway bill viz. Phoenix International Freight Service Ltd. would make arrangement to collect the shipment document, pay the freight charges as mentioned in the Airway bill and clear the consignment. M/s. Phoenix International Freight Services Ltd. being the custom clearing agent cleared the shipment at the airport in USA by paying the freight charge in the absence of the Canara Bank or its Branch in USA. Enquiry also revealed that M/s. Phoenix International Services Ltd. and M/s. Apparel Solution had not received any documents either directly or through any bank for payment. When the complainant claimed details this was informed. Further, the consignment which was reconsigned by M/s. Apparel Solutions LLC 117 Olive Steet, St. Louis, USA to the complainant at Chennai through the custom broker M/s. Phoenix International Foreign Services Ltd. by sea thereby establishing that the same consignment has been returned back to Chennai. The fact that the goods were returned by M/s. Apparel Solutions to the complainant, would indicate that there must be some problems either in the payment or in the quality of the goods between the shipper and the Apparel Solutions for which the opposite party cannot be held responsible. There was nothing in the Airway bill to suggest that the customer has to make payment, through the consignee bank or their authorized nominees, and obtain the original Airway bill, and other documents endorsed in their favour to enable them to take delivery of the consignment through their clearing agents. Further there was no indication in the Airway bill also that Canara Bank endorsed the documents to the Bank of America. The delivery has been made by the opposite party in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Airway bill to the notified party, there being no branch of Canara Bank at the address given in the Airway bill which cannot be imagined even as irregular delivery or amounting to deficiency in service. If the complainant had lost the value of the consignment if at all they alone has to be blamed since the complainant consignor ought to have incorporated the correct name and address of his banker at New York which they failed and the opposite party has not failed in its duty and not committed any deficiency and prayed for dismissal of complaint. Learned State Commission after hearing both the parties dismissed complaint against which, this appeal has been filed.