SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 909

Supreme Court of India
G.S. SINGHVI & H.L. DATTU
Trans Mediterranean Airways
Versus
M/s Universal Exports & Another
CIVIL APPEAL NO.1909 OF 2004
Decided on: 15-09-2011

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Vinoo Bhagat and Rutwik Panda, Advocates
For the Respondents:Jaideep Gupta, G.S. Chatterjeet, Raja Chatterjee, Siddhartha Dave, Senthil Jagadeesan and Ms. Jemtiben AO., Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
The National Commission has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties and it is a Court.

Headnote:(a) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 3 – Protection to consumers in addition to remedies available under any other Statute including The Carriage by AIR Act, 1972 incorporating Warsaw convention and Hague protocol – An alternative remedy – Value of subject matter more than `20 lakhs – National Commission had jurisdiction – A ‘court’ for the purpose of Rule 29, Second Schedule to Act 1972 – Appellant cannot claim sovereign immunity. (Para 32)

       1995 Supp. (4) SCC 107; (1996) 6 SCC 385; (2003) 2 SCC 412; (2004) 1 SCC 305; (2007) 4 SCC 579; (2000) 5 SCC 294; (2000) 4 SCC 91; Civil Appeal No.7037 of 2004 – Relied upon

       (b) The Carriage by AIR Act, 1972 – Section 4 – Second Schedule, rule 29Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 25 r/w section 27 – Complaint before Consumer Forum is within the meaning of the term “suit” as employed by Section 9 of the Carriers Act, 1865 – Consumer Fora decide disputes which is main function and purpose of court – National Commission is a “Court” within the meaning of Rule 29 of the Second Schedule of the CA Act. (Para 43)

       (2000) 4 SCC 91 – Relied upon

       (1995) 3 SCC 583; (2000) 7 SCC 668; (2003) 2 SCC 412; (2010) 11 SCC 1; 1950 SCR 459; 1951 SCR 51; (1955) 2 SCR 955; AIR 1956 SC 614; (1974) 1 SCC 374; (1994) 5 SCC 314; (1995) Supp 3 SCC 81; (2000) 5 SCC 355; (1992) Supp (2) SCC 651; (2003) 2 SCC 412 – Referred

       (c) Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – Section 12 – Appellant, a Carrier of repute operating in Spain expected to find the consignee and deliver consignment to it – Further, upon arrival of consignment in Spain, Madrid the appellant should have notified the ‘notified party’ – Appellant not taking any step and delivering consignment to wrong party – National Commission rightly recorded finding of deficiency of service. (Para 51)

       (d) The Carriage by AIR Act, 1972 – Section 4 – Second Schedule, Rule 6 and 16 – Consignor furnishing all relevant information in airway bill – Not at fault. (Para 52)

       (e) The Carriage by AIR Act, 1972 – Section 4 – second Schedule, Rule 29(2) – No period of limitation provided – Questions of procedure to be governed by the law of the Court seized of the case – Rule 30 providing a limitation of two years – Airway bill cannot override the Rules, (Para 54)

       Facts of the case:

       Respondent no. 1 sent consignments through the agent, respondent no, 2 by the air cargo, the appellant, to Spain.

       The agent made three airway bills

       Consignment of one bill was delivered. However it transpired that two bills were delivered to wrong parties.

       Respondent no. 1 filed a complaint with the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which allowed the petition and directed the appellant to pay a sum equivalent to US $71,615.75 with 5% interest from the date of the complaint, till its realization, and imposed costs of `1 lakh for deficiency of service.

       Finding of the Court:

       The National Commission has jurisdiction to decide the dispute between the parties and it is a Court and that there was deficiency in service by the appellant-carrier.

       Result:

       Appeal dismissed.

Judgment

H.L. DATTU, J.

1) This appeal is filed under Section 23 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 [hereinafter referred to as “the C P Act”] against the order in Original Petition No. 161 of 1994 of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi [“the National Commission” for short] dated 15th January, 2004, whereby the National Commission has directed the appellant to pay a sum equivalent to US $71,615.75 with 5% interest from the date of the complaint, till its realization, and imposed costs of `1 lakh for deficiency of service.

2) The appellant before us is an International Cargo carrier, with its principal place of business at Beirut, Lebanon. Respondent No.1 is a garment exporter and respondent No.2 is an accredited International Air Transport Association agent. By this appeal, we are called upon to examine and reconcile the area of operation of the C P Act on the one hand, and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 [hereinafter referred to as “the CA Act”] along with the Warsaw Convention of 1929 [hereinafter referred to as “the Warsaw Convention”] on the other. The appellant, respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2, hereinafter, for the sake of brevity, referred to as “appellant carrier”, “the consignor” and “agent” respectively.

3) The core issues that arise for our consideration and decision in this appeal are:

1. Whether the National Commission under the CP Act has the jurisdiction to entertain and decide a complaint filed by the consignor claiming compensation for deficiency of service by the carrier, in view of the provisions of the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention. Or whether domestic laws can be added to or substituted for the provisions of the conventions.

2. Whether the appellant can be directed to compensate the consignor for deficiency of service in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Brief Facts

4) The facts leading to this appeal are as follows:

The agent made out three airway bills for shipping of garments to Spain on behalf of the consignor through the appellant-carrier. In the consignee column, the consignment was addressed as :

“BB SAE MADRID, SPAIN

NOTIFY: M/S LIWE ESPANOLA S.A.,

MAYOR S/N, 30006 PUENTE TOCINOR

APARTADO, 741, MORCIA, SPAIN,

L.C. No. C. 1036-92-00276”

In the box titled `Handling Information', the following information was recorded:

“MARKS: SPAIN N/C NOS: 1027-1185

TOTAL ONE HUNDRED FIFTY NINE CARTONS ONLY/PLS INF CNEE IMM ON ARR/DOCUMENTS ATTACHED”

The airway bills from Bombay to Amsterdam were dated 25-08-1992 and the consignment through the appellant-carrier reached Amsterdam on 30-08-1992. From Amsterdam, the consignments were sent to Madrid by road on the following day, and they reached Madrid on 03-09-1992 and were cleared by the Customs Authorities. The appellant-carrier delivered the consignment to M/s Liwe Espanola, as according to them, that was the only recognizable address available from the documents furnished by the consignor.

5) After nine months from the date of shipment, the agent made enquiry regarding two of the three airway bills. Since there was no response, the agent made further enquiry again after four months. In response to the query, the appellant-carrier informed the consigner that on finding the full name and complete postal address of the consignee as M/s Liwe Espanola, the appellant-carrier has delivered the goods to it. It was at this stage, the consignor claimed that the consignee of the said consignment was Barclays Bank, Madrid, which had only one branch in Madrid and since the appellant carrier had wrongly delivered the consignment to the address mentioned in the Block column instead of routing it through Barclays Bank and, therefore, there is deficiency of service. Accordingly, the consignor instituted a complaint under Section 12 of the CP Act before the National Commission, inter alia, claiming compensation for the alleged deficiency of service by the appellant-carrier and the agent for not delivering the said consignment to the c
























































































































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top