2011 (9) TMI 853 - SC - Companies Law

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

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.