| CITATION | (2011) 10 SCC 31 |
| DATE OF JUDGEMENT | 15 September, 2011 |
| COURT | SUPREME COURT |
| APPELLANT | Trans Mediterranean Airways |
| RESPONDENT | Universal Exports and Anr. |
| BENCH | G.S. Singhvi, H.L. Dattu |
INTRODUCTION
In the case of Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports and Anr., (2011) 10 SCC 31, a dispute arose between Trans Mediterranean Airways (TMA) and Universal Exports (UE) regarding lost goods during air transportation. UE filed a complaint against TMA in a Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA). TMA challenged the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, arguing that the dispute was governed by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (MTOGA). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of UE, holding that the Consumer Forum had jurisdiction to hear the dispute. The Court also clarified that the CPA and MTOGA could co-exist and that consumers have the discretion to choose the forum in which to file their complaints.
FACTS OF THE CASE-
Trans Mediterranean Airways (TMA), an airline, transported goods for Universal Exports (UE). When some of the goods were lost during transportation, UE filed a complaint against TMA in a Consumer Forum under S.23 -Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA), claiming TMA deficient in their services. TMA contested the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum, arguing the dispute should be governed by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (MTOGA), a specialized statute for air carriage. This dispute raised the question of whether the Consumer Forum could hear the case and if the CPA and MTOGA coexisted.
ISSUES RAISED-
1. Whether the National Consumer Commission had jurisdiction to hear the case, or whether a different court should have heard it.
2. Whether the appellant, Trans Mediterranean Airways, was liable for deficiency of service, as alleged by Universal Exports.
CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT-
1.Exclusive Jurisdiction of MTOGA: TMA argued that the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (MTOGA) exclusively governs disputes arising from air carriage contracts. Therefore, the National Consumer Commission lacked jurisdiction, as its purview is limited to consumer disputes under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (CPA).
2. Contractual Exclusion: TMA claimed the air carriage contract explicitly excluded the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum and prescribed alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
3. Inapplicability of CPA: TMA argued that the CPA was not intended for specialized disputes like international air carriage, which require specific legal expertise beyond the Consumer Forum’s competence.
CONTENTIONS OF RESPONDENT-
Concurrent Jurisdiction: UE argued that the Consumer Forum has concurrent jurisdiction with other forums for disputes arising from consumer contracts, including air carriage agreements.
Consumer Protection: UE emphasized that the CPA aimed to protect consumers from unfair trade practices and was applicable to their case, regardless of MTOGA’s existence.
Consumer Forum’s Competence: UE asserted that the Consumer Forum possesses sufficient expertise to handle disputes arising from air carriage contracts.
Negligence and Deficiency: UE maintained that TMA’s failure to deliver the goods constituted negligence and deficiency of service under the CPA. Strict Liability: UE argued that under the MTOGA, TMA was strictly liable for the loss of the goods unless they could prove it fell within the exempted categories.
Burden of Proof: UE argued that the burden of proving exemption from liability rested with TMA, which they failed to do.
JUDGEMENT-
The Supreme Court held in favor of Universal Exports (UE), ruling that the National Consumer Commission had jurisdiction to hear their case against Trans Mediterranean Airways (TMA) despite the presence of the specialized Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (MTOGA). The Court affirmed the concurrent jurisdiction of Consumer Forums for consumer disputes arising from air carriage contracts. It rejected TMA’s claims of exclusive jurisdiction under MTOGA or contractual exclusion, finding them irrelevant to the question of consumer protection under the CPA. The Court also dismissed TMA’s arguments regarding reasonable care and exemptions under MTOGA, upholding UE’s allegations of negligence and holding TMA strictly liable for the lost goods. Ultimately, the Court emphasized the Consumer Forum’s accessibility, affordability, and suitability for consumer disputes, upholding UE’s right to choose their preferred forum and securing their due compensation for the loss.
CONCLUSION-
In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Trans Mediterranean Airways v. Universal Exports and Anr. (2011) 10 SCC 316 marked a significant victory for consumer protection in India. By recognizing the concurrent jurisdiction of Consumer Forums for air carriage disputes, the Court ensured wider access to justice and empowered consumers to choose their preferred forum for resolving grievances. This case also established the principle of strict liability for carriers, holding them accountable for lost goods unless they could prove specific exemptions under the MTOGA. The Court’s emphasis on consumer welfare and procedural accessibility marked a crucial step towards strengthening consumer rights and upholding fair trade practices in the air travel industry.
Written by suhani wadhwa an intern under legal vidhiya.
Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.
0 Comments