2011 (9) TMI 853 - SC - Companies Law

Jurisdiction of the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act (CP Act) vis- a-vis the Carriage by Air Act (CA Act) and Warsaw Convention - Compensation for deficiency of service - definition of consumer - Meaning of court - National Commission is a Court ? Jurisdiction of the National Commission - HELD THAT - In our view the protection provided under the CP Act to consumers is in addition to the remedies available under any other Statute. It does not extinguish the remedies under another Statute but provides an additional or alternative remedy. In the instant case at the relevant point of time the value of the subject matter was more than Rs. 20 lakhs by which the National Commission is conferred jurisdiction for any cause of action that arises under the Act. Further we are not inclined to agree with the argument of Shri. Bhagat that exercising of jurisdiction was in contravention of International Law as the Warsaw Convention and the Hague Protocol have been incorporated into the domestic law by the passage of the CA Act. Therefore we do not find any legal infirmity in the National Commission exercising its jurisdiction as the same can be considered a Court within the territory of a High Contracting Party for the purpose of Rule 29 of the Second Schedule to the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention. Before we conclude on this issue we may usefully notice a three Judge Bench decision of this Court in the case of Ethiopian Airlines vs. Ganesh Narain Saboo 2011 (8) TMI 1181 - SUPREME COURT which view is binding on us. This issue is no more res integra in view of the decisions of this Court in Ethiopian Airlines. National Commission is a Court ? - The use of the word Court in Rule 29 of the Second Schedule of the CA Act has been borrowed from the Warsaw Convention. We are of the view that the word Court has not been used in the strict sense in the Convention as has come to be in our procedural law. The word Court has been employed to mean a body that adjudicates a dispute arising under the provisions of the CP Act. The CP Act gives the District Forums State Forums and National Commission the power to decide disputes of consumers. The jurisdiction the power and procedure of these Forums are all clearly enumerated by the CP Act. Though these Forums decide matters after following a summary procedure their main function is still to decide disputes which is the main function and purpose of a Court. We are of the view that for the purpose of the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention the Consumer Forums can fall within the meaning of the expression Court . This view of ours is fortified by the decision of this Court in the case of Patel Roadways Ltd. 2000 (3) TMI 1092 - SUPREME COURT where this Court has held that a complaint before the Consumer Forum is within the meaning of the term suit as employed by Section 9 of the Carriers Act 1865. In other words we are of the view that when it comes to legislations like the CP Act there can be no restricted meaning given to the word Court . Hence we reject the argument of Shri. Bhagat that the National Commission is not a Court within the meaning of Rule 29 of the Second Schedule of the CA Act. Deficiency of Service - In the present case as we have already noticed that the consignor had furnished all the relevant information in the airway bill which would satisfy the requirements of both Rule 6 and 16 of the rules and therefore the consignor cannot be accused of not furnishing the correct particulars and information in the airway bill which is handed over to the appellant-carrier with the cargo. In our view the appellant-carrier cannot absolve its responsibilities by contending that it would be practically impossible to verify the correctness of all the airway bills which are furnished with the cargo. The appellant s contention that the name and address of the consignee was inadequate is difficult to accept. There is evidence on record to show that documents supporting the letter of credit was sent by the consignors using the self same name and address and there was no difficulty in the same being delivered to the consignee bank. In the evidence of the consignor it is elicited that necessary oral enquiries were made with the carrier within a reasonable time when the consignor did not receive the value of the goods from the consignee and since it did not receive any reasonable explanation it had no other alternative but to correspond with the appellant-carrier by written correspondence. Though the witnesses of the consignor are cross examined by the appellant-carrier nothing worthwhile is elicited. Therefore in the absence of any contrary evidence the statement made by the consignor and its witness require to be accepted. We are in total agreement with the conclusion reached by the National Commission. Therefore we do not see any merit in the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant-carrier. We conclude that 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. Thus we do not see any merit in this appeal. Accordingly it is dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Jurisdiction of the National Commission under the Consumer Protection Act (CP Act) vis-`a-vis the Carriage by Air Act (CA Act) and Warsaw Convention.
2. Deficiency of service by the appellant-carrier.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the National Commission:

The primary issue was whether the National Commission under the CP Act had jurisdiction to entertain and decide a complaint filed by the consignor for compensation due to deficiency of service by the carrier, considering the provisions of the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention. The appellant-carrier contended that only specific courts mentioned in Rule 29 of the Second Schedule to the CA Act had jurisdiction, and the National Commission was not a court. The National Commission, however, held that the CP Act provided an additional remedy for consumers and was not in derogation of other laws, including the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention. The Supreme Court upheld this view, emphasizing that the CP Act aimed to provide speedy and simple redressal for consumer disputes and that the National Commission could be considered a court within the meaning of Rule 29 of the Second Schedule to the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention.

2. Deficiency of Service:

The consignor claimed that the appellant-carrier delivered the consignment to the wrong party, M/s Liwe Espanola, instead of Barclays Bank, Madrid, as indicated in the airway bill. The appellant-carrier argued that the address provided by the consignor was incomplete and that they delivered the consignment to the only recognizable address. The National Commission found that the appellant-carrier should have contacted the consignor if there was any doubt about the consignee's address. The Supreme Court agreed, noting that the appellant-carrier, being an experienced international carrier, should have verified the consignee's address or contacted the consignor for clarification. The Court also dismissed the appellant-carrier's contention that the complaint was barred by limitation, noting that the complaint was filed within two years as required by Rule 30 of the Second Schedule to the CA Act.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the National Commission's jurisdiction and finding of deficiency of service by the appellant-carrier. The Court emphasized that the CP Act provided an additional remedy for consumers and that the National Commission could be considered a court for the purposes of the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention. The appellant-carrier was directed to compensate the consignor for the deficiency of service.