The consumer law in India will apply to foreign carriers in addition to the Carriers Act and international conventions, the Supreme Court stated last week in the case, Trans Mediterranean Airways vs Universal Exports. The remedy available under the Carriers Act by way of a suit will not bar a consumer complaint under the Consumer Protection Act, the court clarified. This is because the remedy by way of a consumer complaint is in addition to other remedies and not in derogation of them. This is made clear by the Consumer Protection Act itself. In this case, an exporter of garments sent a consignment from Mumbai to Madrid via Amsterdam. There was some confusion with regard to the address of the consignee and therefore it was not delivered to the proper address. This led to the dispute. The Indian exporter moved the National Consumer Commission in Delhi. The Lebanese air carrier contested the jurisdiction of the Indian forum and insisted that the Carriers Act or the international conventions will apply. The National Commission rejected this contention and directed it to pay compensation for deficiency in service. The Supreme Court upheld the order.
Apex court rejects petition of Cauvery Coffee Traders
The Supreme Court has dismissed the petition of Cauvery Coffee Traders seeking international arbitration in its dispute with Hornor Resources (Intern) Co over payment for two consignments of ore fines supplied from Mangalore to Rizhao port, China. Since there was difference in quality of the ore requested and supplied, some price adjustment was made after negotiations and the payment was made in “full and final settlement” for the consignment. However, after three months, the exporter stated that the acceptance of the amount by its bank was the result of an “erroneous message” and raised a dispute. It wanted arbitration in Singapore or Australia according to the purchase agreement. The Supreme Court rejected the request as the exporter had already accepted the payment. A party cannot be permitted to blow hot and cold or play fast and loose, the judgment said.
Court must follow medical report in compensation case
The Supreme Court has stated that medical evidence of the disability due to injuries sustained in a road accident must ordinarily be relied upon for assessing compensation. The courts cannot arbitrarily reduce the percentage of disability, the judgment in the case, D Sampath vs United India Insurance Company, emphasised. In this case, a pillion rider was severely injured and suffered 75 per cent physical disability according to the doctor. He sought Rs 12 lakh as compensation, but the tribunal granted only Rs 3.5 lakh. He appealed to the Madras high court which raised it to Rs 4.9 lakh, but reduced the disability to 50 per cent without any reason. On further appeal, the Supreme Court awarded Rs 6.12 lakh, observing that though the doctor had assessed 75 per cent disability, the high court took into account only 50 per cent disability “without any rhyme or reason.”
Delhi HC dismisses corporate tenants’ challenge to service tax
A division bench of the Delhi high court last week dismissed a large number of writ petitions challenging the constitutional validity of Section 65(105)(zzzz) of the Finance Act, 1995 and Section 66 as amended by the Finance Act, 2010. The petitions were moved by tenant companies arguing that an “artificial liability” was imposed on them to pay service tax though the onus rested with the owners. The owners insisted upon the petitioner companies making the payment. The dispute arose due to the Finance Acts. The high court rejected the petitions, led by Home Solutions Retails (India), challenging the power of Parliament to pass a law which dealt with property. It was the state which has the power to deal with renting of immovable property as it is a tax on lands and buildings which came within Entry 49 of List II of the 7th of the Constitution.
