National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Airlift India Private Limited vs Aurobindo Pharma Limited on 29 January, 2008
Equivalent citations: II(2008)CPJ88(NC)
ORDER
B.K. Taimni, Member
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.
4. We again specifically asked the learned Counsel for the appellant to show us any authority under I ATA Regulation or otherwise, on the basis of which the appellant had the authority to make changes in the name of consignee, nothing has been shown to this effect in support of this plea taken by them. We are of the view that name of the 'consignee' as given by the 'consignor', could not be changed by any agent or airline without authority from the consignor for the simpler reason that this is eminently material for purpose of delivery against payment to the consignor. In the aforementioned circumstances. Learned Counsel for the appellant have not satisfied us about the alleged authorities vested in them to change the name of the consignee. We see no merit in this appeal.
5. Another plea taken by the learned Counsel for the appellant is that they were acting on the advice of Proud Sky Company Ltd., hence cannot be held liable. But when we see on record is the House Airway bill issued by the appellant at this request of the complainant. In view of which we see no merit in this plea.
6. The second point raised by learned Counsel for the appellant is about the rate of interest, i.e., 12% from 1.1.1998. It cannot be disputed that while the rate of interest was hight in 1998-1999 but it had come down considerably for the next about 4 years or so. Keeping in mind the ground reality, we are of the view that this 12% interest needs to be reduced and we do it accordingly and reduce it to 9% p.a. Only to this extent the impugned order is modified and this appeal is allowed.
7. The appellant is directed to make all the payments within a period of six weeks from the date of this order.
8. By our order dated 28th November, 2006, 50% of the decreed amount a long with the interest was deposited with the Registrar of the State Commission, the respondent is free to withdraw that amount, if not already done. The appellant shall re-work the amount payable in view of the modification ordered in the rate of interest, and shall pay the remaining amount within a period of six weeks after taking into consideration the amount already lying deposited with the State Commission by the appellant.
9. The appeal stands disposed of in above. No order as to costs.