SUESH BAFNA Vs. LUFTHANSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complainant sent a consignment of 10 cartons of leather waist coats and suits numbering 978 to the 1st opposite party M/s. Lufthansa German Airlines, for safe carriage by air from Madras to Frankfurt, Germany, under Air Way Bill dated 1.11.1993. According to the complainant, the original invoice and shippers' documents were sent to the consignee's bankers for encashment. The 1st opposite party had to deliver the consignment to the consignee on the consignee handing over the original documents. But the documents had been returned to the complainant by the complainant's bankers informing that the consignee's bankers had returned the said documents to them. It is learnt that the 1st opposite party had delivered the consignment to the consignee without receipt of the original documents sent to the consignee's bankers. The complainant has not received the value of the consignment. The 2nd opposite party M/s. Trinity Services which transferred the Letter of Credit in favour of the complainant for supply of the goods directly approached the consignee and collected DM 5,000/- and also allowed discount of DM 1,670 and informed the complainant that DM 8,000 will be paid later. But the complainant has not received any payment from them. Therefore there is gross deficiency in service on the part of the 1st opposite party and there is unfair trade practice on the part of the 2nd opposite party. On these allegations the complaint has been filed for directing the opposite parties to pay the value of the goods viz. , Rs.4,85,000/- with interest thereon @ 24% per annum and to pay the freight charges of Rs.48,321/- besides Rs.2 lakhs as damages for mental agony.

(2.) The 1st opposite party in its written version denied the allegations against it in the complaint. It contended that the consignment had been duly delivered to the consignee after obtaining from them the necessary acknowledgement. It is not correct to say that the consignment should have been delivered only after obtaining the original documents from the consignee. At the time of booking for transport this opposite party had not been instructed by the complainant regarding the method of delivery to the consignee. Therefore the complaint is not maintainable as against the 1st opposite party.

(3.) The 2nd opposite party contended inter alia that there was no privity of contract between them and the complainant, and the complainant is not a consumer vis-a-vis this opposite party and therefore the complaint is not maintainable.