TRANS MEDITERRANEAN AIRWAYS versus M/S UNIVERSAL EXPORTS & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 14 S.C.R. 47 · Decided: 15-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 47 
TRANS MEDITERRANEAN AIRWAYS 
v. 
M/S UNIVERSAL EXPORTS & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1909 of 2004) 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND H.L. DATTU, JJ. ] 
CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986: 
A 
B 
Object and historical background of its enactment - c 
Discussed. 
, 
Complaint by consignor claiming compensation -
Jurisdiction of National Commission under the GP Act to 
entertain - Held: National Commission has jurisdiction under 0 
the GP Act to entertain ·'f#nd decide a complaint filed by the 
consignor claiming compensation for deficiency of service by 
the carrier, in view of the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act 
and the Warsaw Convention - Carriage by Air Act, 1972. 
Deficiency in service - Delivery of consignments -
E 
Complaint filed before National Commission by consignor 
claiming compensation for deficiency in service on the ground 
that the consignments were delivered to wrong person -
National commission held that the services rendered by 
carrier were deficient and held it liable to pay compensation F 
equivalent to USO 71,615 - Order of National Commission 
challenged on the grounds that it had no jurisdiction to 
entertain the complaint and there was no deficiency of service 
-
Held: There was no legal infirmity in the National 
Commission exercising its jurisdiction, as· the same can be G 
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 - Consignment was 
delivered tQ Mis LIWE ESPANOLA - Perusal of the airway 
47 
H 
48 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 14 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 
A 
bill showed the name of the consignee as BBSAE, Madrid 
and thereafter, the name of Mis LIWE ESPANOLA was 
mentioned - The stand of the appellant-carrier cannot be 
accepted that since the name of Mis. LIWE ESPANOLA also 
appeared along with BBSAE, Madrid, the consignment was 
B delivered to the notified party - If, for any reason, the 
appellant-carrier was of the view that the particulars furnished 
were insufficient for effecting the defi'v·ery of the consignment, 
it was expected from the appellant-carrier to have made 
enquiries - The appellant, being an airline carrier of high 
c repute and effecting transportation of goods to various parts 
of the world including Spain is expected to be fully aware of 
the consignee's name, which was indicated in the consignee's 
box and they should have notified the notified party 
immediately after the arrival of the consignment - Since, that 
was not done, the National Commission was justified in 
D holding that there was deficiency of service on the part of the 
carrier in not effecting the delivery of goods to the consignee. 
National Commission whether a "court" - Held: The use 
of the word "Court" in Rule 29 of the Second Schedule of the 
E Act has been borrowed from the Warsaw Convention - 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 GP 
F Act - The 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 Act -
Though, these Forums decide matters after following a 
G summary procedure, their main function is still to decide 
. disputes, which is the main function and purpose of a Court. 
H 
CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT, 1972: Object and historical 
background of its enactment - Discussed. 
TRANS MEDITERRANEAN AIRWAYS v. UNIVERSAL 
49 
EXPORTS & ANR. 
WORDS AND PHRASES: Court -
Meaning of -
A 
Discussed. 
The appellant, an International Cargo carrier had its 
principal place of business at Beirut, Lebanon. 
Respondent No.1-consignor was a garment exporter and 
8 
respondent No.2 was an accredited International Air 
Transport Association agent. 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 to 
C 
"BB SAE MADRID, SPAIN NOTIFY: M/S LIWE ESPANOLA 
S.A., MAYOR SIN, 30006 PUENTE TOCINOR APARTADO, 
741, MORCIA, SPAIN, L.C. No. C. 1036-92-00276". The 
consignments reached Madrid and were ·cleared by the 
Customs Authorities. The appellant-carrier delivered the 
consignment to M/s Liwe Espanola, as
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.