JOSEPHINE JOHN vs AVIATION EXPRESS (P) LTD.

APPELLANT was the complainant before the State Commission, where she had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the respondents.

VERY briefly the facts of the case are that the complainant who is proprietrix of M/s. Sunny Exports, is an exporter of leather garments and leather goods. After obtaining an order from the importer in U.K., she handed over a consignment of 10 cartons valued at Rs. 2,46,698 to respondent No. 1, M/s. Aviation Express Pvt. Ltd., who in turn handed over the consignment to second respondent who are the agents of M/s. Singapore Airlines, the third respondent. This was against an L.C. The payment was made to the complainant but when the payments were not received by the Bank in terms of L.C., they asked for repayment of this credited amount, to the Bank. It is the case of the complainant that the goods were not released in U.K. to the party but to an agent of the consignee on alleged oral instructions, which finds no mention in the Air-way bill. Since there were continuous demands of amounts in question from her Bank and she was neither receiving any payment nor any information about as to whom the goods have been delivered, and after constantly chasing the matter with all the three respondents, no satisfactory reply was forthcoming, a complaint was filed before the State Commission, who after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record, dismissed the complaint. Aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length and perused the material on record. As per provisions of law this case shall be governed by the provisions of Carriage by Air Act and as there is also not dispute that the Air-way bill is a contract between the parties. When we see the Air-way bill the consignee''s name and address is given as follows: "Court International (Textiles) Ltd., Nena House, 77-79, Great Eastern Street, London, E.C2, U.K."

Since the Air-way bill mentioned the name of consignee as ''Court International'' and relying upon Ex. B-17, State Commission has returned the finding that indeed the goods were delivered to ''Court International'', no deficiency can be alleged, especially when as per record there is a letter from Court International Ltd. addressed to third respondent confirming that the goods have been delivered to their agent. Since the consignee, as it appears in Air-way Bill, has been delivered the goods and there is an acknowledgement from him, no deficiency on the part of the third respondent can be fastened on them. Air-way Bill on record is a plan simple Air-way bill in which no terms have been expressed and as per practice, the 10 cartons were delivered to the consign, as per the entries/instructions contained in the Air-way Bill. If the payment has not been received by the exporter complainant from her buyer in U.K., the third respondent cannot be held responsible for any account. The State Commission rightly, keeping in view the law on the point, has dismissed this complaint.

IT needs to be made clear that in case the complainant wanted the goods to be released against Bank documents then they should have made the Bank as the consignee to protect his interest. In this case, the respondent No. 3 has delivered the goods to the consignee, for which they cannot be faulted. In the aforementioned circumstances, we see no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.