AIRLIFT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Vs. AUROBINDO PHARMA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -APPELLANT was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant Aurobindo Pharma Limited had filed the complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. Undisputed facts of the case are, that with a view to export a consignment, the respondent Aurobindo Pharma Limited approached the appellant M/s. Airlift (India) Pvt. Ltd. The necessary documents were given including the House Airway bill prepared by the appellant, which is on record. Somewhere down the line, the name of the consignee in the final Airway bill issued by Singapore Airlines, was changed from 'bank' as appearing in the House Airway bill, to Proud Sky Company Limited, the handling agent in Hong Kong, without any instructions from the consignor-M/s. Aurobindo Pharma Limited.

(2.) IT was the case of the respondent/complainant that the goods were delivered to Proud Sky Company Limited and they did not receive any payment. When the matter was taken up through his Bank, who in turn took up the matter with the corresponding bank in Hong Kong, and nothing was coming out of it, a complaint was filed before the State Commission who after hearing the parties allowed the complaint and directed the appellant/opposite party to pay the value of the consignment amounting to Rs. 12,87,700 being the Indian rupee equivalent to US $ 32,600 along with interest @ 2%, Rs. 10,000 as compensation and Rs. 3,000 as cost. Aggrieved by this order this appeal is filed before us. We have very carefully gone through the material on record and heard the arguments of learned Counsel for the parties.

(3.) THE only controversy is the change in the name of the consignee as they were appearing in House Airway bill as also the final airway bill. On this particular issue this is what the State Commission observed: "the only defence put forward by the opposite party is that they are entitled to make changes in the Master Airway Bill and accordingly they made changes therein showing M/s. Proud Sky Company Ltd. as the consignee. The opposite party have not produced any authority nor any rule to show that there can be difference between the House Airway bill and the Master Airway bill and that the carrier has a right to change the name or the terms in the Master Airway bill. "