Holding

Proceedings before consumer forums are suits, but Section 86 of the CPC is inapplicable as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, being later special statutes, override it, so foreign airlines cannot claim sovereign immunity.

Summary

The respondent filed a complaint before the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission alleging delay and damage to a consignment shipped by Ethiopian Airlines. The State Commission dismissed the complaint; the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission set aside that order and remitted the case for fresh consideration. Ethiopian Airlines appealed, contending that, as a foreign state instrumentality, it could not be sued under the Consumer Protection Act without prior consent of the Central Government under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Supreme Court held that proceedings before consumer forums are “suits” but Section 86 does not apply because the later special statutes – the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 – expressly exclude its applicability. Consequently, Ethiopian Airlines is not entitled to sovereign immunity and may be sued in the consumer forum. The appeal was dismissed and the matter was directed back to the State Commission for disposal.

Issues considered

Whether proceedings before the Consumer Forum constitute a 'suit' within the meaning of Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether Section 86 of the CPC applies to consumer forum proceedings.
Whether Ethiopian Airlines can claim sovereign immunity under Section 86 CPC in a consumer dispute.
Whether the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, being later special statutes, override Section 86 CPC.
Whether prior consent of the Central Government is required to sue a foreign airline in a consumer forum.

Legislation cited

Carriage by Air Act, 1972s. 3, s. 7
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 86
Consumer Protection Act, 1986s. 13(4), s. 13(5), s. 13(6), s. 14(1)(d), s. 3

Subjects

consumer protectionsovereign immunityforeign stateCarriage by Air ActSection 86 CPCconsumer forumrestrictive immunitystatutory interpretation

Judgment

[2011] 9 S.C.R. 936

A ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES
v.
' .
GANESH NARAIN SABOO
(Civil Appeal No. 7037 of 2004)
AUGUST 09, 2011
B ;.

[DALVEER BHANDARI, DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA
AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 86 - Suit against
c foreign Rules, Ambassadors and Envoys - Complaint before
the Consumer Fora against appellant-foreign airlines by
respondent alleging deficiency in service - Applicability of s.
86 to proceedings before consumer fora - Case of appellant
that being a foreign State or its instrumentality it could not be
D proceeded against under the Consumer Protection Act
without obtaining proper permission of the Central
Government - Held: Proceeding before the Consumer Forum
comes within the sweep of term 'suit' - However, s. 86 is
inapplicable - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the
E Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which came long after the CPC,
are more focused and specific statutes, and thus, should be
held to exclude s. 86 - In the fora created by the Consumer
Act, the provisions of CPC are applicable to a limited extent . ~

and not all the provisions of CPC are made applicable to the
proceedings of the National Forum - Rules created pursuant
F
to the Consumer Act itself govern the procedure to be followed
in the Consumer Fora - Thus, appellant-foreign airlines is not
entitled to sovereign immunity with respect to a commercial
transaction - Any other consent of the Central Government
is not required to subject the appellant-foreign airlines, to a
G suit in an Indian Court - They must be held accountable for
the contractual and commercial activities and obligations that
it undertakes in India - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 -
Carriage by Air Act, 1972.
H 936
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 937

4 ,,;
Suit - Meaning of - Held: Term 'suit' is a generic term A
taking within its sweep all proceedings initiated by a party for
realisation of the right vested in him in law - In common
.r parlance, the term 'suit' is taken to include all proceedings of
a judicial or quasi-judicial nature in which the disputes of
~ aggrieved parties are adjudicated before an impartial, forum B
- Thus, proceedings before the consumer fora fall squarely
within the term suit.

Interpretation of statutes - Principle of statutory
interpretation - Held: Specific statutes that come later in time
trump prior general statutes- ConsumerProtection Act, 1986
c
and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which came long after the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are more focused and specific
statutes and therefore, should be held to supersede s. 86 -
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
D
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Object of.
Carriage by Air Act, 1972 - Application of - Held: Its
rules apply to carriage performed by the State or by legally
constituted public bodies - Thus, on facts, according to the E
Indian Law, the appellant-foreign airlines can be subjected to
suit under the Act - By signing onto the Warsaw Convention,
. .. ,
the appellant-foreign airlines expressly waived its Airlines'
right to immunity in cases such as that sub judice - Thus, the
Central Governments of both India and Ethiopia have waived
F
that right by passing the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 .and by
signing onto the Warsaw Convention.
Doctrines/Principles:
Principle of expressio unius - Explained. G
., Principle of restrictive immunity :... Explained
International Law.
Respondent booked a consignment of reactive dyes
with appellant-Foreign Airlines to be delivered in H
• J ~ •

938 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.
., ,.
A Tanzania. It is alleged that there was delay in delivery of
goods in Tanzania which resulted in deterioration of the
goods. The respondent filed a complaint against the
appellant-Foreign Airlines before the State Consumer
Redressal Commission under the Consumer Protection
B Act, 1986 for the alleged deficiency in service. The State
Commission held that the complaint was not
maintainable. On appeal, the National Commission set
aside the order of the State Commission and remitted the
matter to the State Commission for deciding it afresh.
c Aggrieved, the appellant filed the instant appeal
before the Supreme Court on the ground that a foreign
State or its instrumentality cannot be proceeded against
under the Act without obtaining prior permission from the
Central Government; that a foreign State or its
D instrumentality can legitimately claim sovereign immunity
from being proceeded against under the Act in respect
of a civil claim.
The questions arose for consideration before the two
E judge Bench of this Court that whether proceedings
before the Consumer Forum are suits. There being two
conflicting judgments on the said issue, *E.l.C.M. Exports
Ltd. v. South Indian Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. and Another .. -
2009 (10) SCALE 22 and **Patel Roadways Limited v. Bir/a
F Yamaha Limited (2000) 4 sec 91, the matter was referred1
to the present larger Bench.
Disposing of the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The impugned order passed by the
G National Commission is untenable so far it held that thej
proceeding before the Consumer Forum does not come
within the sweep of term "suit" because it is contrary to
the judgment of the Constitution Bench of this Court in
***Economic Transport Organization's case that a
H proceeding before the Consumer forum comes within the
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 939

1 ,
sweep of term suit. The finding of the National A
Commission is set aside to that extent. However, the
findings of the National Commission so far as it has
remitted the matter to the State Commission for
adjudication is concurred with. [Para 75] [981-E-G]
~
B
***Economic Transport Organisation, Delhi v. Charan
Spinning Mills Private Limited and Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 114 -
followed.

**Patel Roadways Limited v. Bir/a Yamaha Limited
(2000) 4 sec 91: 2000 (2) SCR 665 - relied on. c
*E. I. C. M. Exports Ltd. v. South Indian Corporation
(Agencies) Ltd. and Anr. 2009 (10) SCALE 22 - overruled.
)

2.1 As per the Annexure to the Carriage by Air Act,
D
1972 under Section 3 sub Section 2, Part-I, vide entry 47,
Ethiopia is a High Contracting Party to the Convention
w.e.f. 12.11.1950. The provisions of Section 7 of the Air
Act read with Rules in the first schedule leaves no room
or doubt that a state carrier or legally constituted public
body of the international carrier is deemed to have E
submitted to the jurisdiction of the courts in India,
including for the purpose of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908. There is a consent deemed to be granted by the
Central Government contemplated under Section 86(1) of
Code of Civil Procedure for a specified class of suits F
under the Air Act. [Paras 44, 45 and 47] [967-G-H; 968-A;
969-A-B]

1.2 The term 'suit' has not been defined in the
Carriage by Air Act, 1972 nor is it provided in the G
Consumer Protection Act that the term 'suit' will have the
• same meaning as in the Code of Civil Procedure.·
~
Therefore, the term 'suit' has to be understood in its
ordinary dictionary meaning. In that sense, the term 'suit'
is a generic term taking within its sweep all proceedin1;1s H
940 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

••
A initiated by a party for realisation of the right vested in him
in law. In common parlance, the term 'suit' is taken to
include all proceedings of a judicial or quasi-judicial
nature in which the disputes of aggrieved parties are
adjudicated before an impartial forum. Proceedings
B before the Consumer fora fall squarely within that
definition. [Para 53 and 55) [973-E-F; 974-A]

***Economic Transport Organisation, Delhi v. Charan
Spinning Mills Private Limited and Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 114 •
followed.
c
**Patel Roadways Limited v. Bir/a Yamaha Limited
(2000) 4 sec 91: 2000 (2) SCR 665 - relied on.

Upshur County v. Rich 135 US 467 (1890); Patterson v.
0 Standard Accident Insurance Co. 178 Mich. 288 - referred
to.

Black's Law Dictionary - referred to.
1.3 Notwithstanding the fact that proceedings of the
E National Commission are 'suits' under the Carriers Act,
vide the expressio unius principle, the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 clearly enumerates those provisions
of the CPC that are applicable to proceedings before the
consumer fora. Such provisions include Section 13(4), in
.F which the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 vests those
powers vested in a civil court under the CPC to the
District Forum. However, according to the principle of
expressio unius, because the legislature expressly made
the aforementioned provisions of the CPC applicable to
G the consumer proceedings, the legislature is, therefore,
deemed to have intentionally excluded all other
provisions of the CPC from applying to the said
proceedings. This is particularly true since the Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 sets forth an exhaustive list of
H procedures, distinguishable from those required under
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 941

~ ...
the CPC, that the consumer redressal fora must follow. A
Therefore, since the Consumer Protection Act does not
state that Section 86 applies to the consumer fora's
proceedings, that Section of the CPC should be held to
be not applicable. Likewise, the CPC itself does not claim
~ to make Section 86 applicable to proceedings before the B
consumer fora. Instead, the CPC includes a saving
clause, providing that "in the absence of any specific
provision to the contrary, nothing in [the CPC] shall be
deemed to limit or otherwise affect any special law or any
special form of procedure prescribed, by or under any c
other law." In addition, Section 86 only applies to a "suit
in any Court". This term should be understood differently
than the term "court" because the CPC refers exclusively
.. to Civil Courts. In particular, the CPC specifically refers
to the District Courts, the High Courts, and the Supreme
D
Court and makes little if any reference to other, quasi-
judicial fora like the consumer redressal bodies. [Paras
58 and 59] (974-H; 975-A-H; 976-A]

H.H. The Maharana Sahib Shri Bhagwat Singh Bahadur
of Udaipur v. State of Rajasthan and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 444: E
1964 SCR 1; Nawab Usmanali Khan v Sagarmal AIR 1965
SC 1798
~

1.4 Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
inapplicable to the instant case because the older and F
more general statute has been excluded by more recent
special statute, namely, Consumer Protection Act, 1986
and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The appellant-Foreign
Airlines is not entitled to sovereign immunity in the suit
at issue in the instant case. Therefore, any other consent
G
of the Central Government is not required to subject the
~
appellant, .Foreign Airlines, to a suit in an Indian Court.
(Paras 60 and 64] [976-B-C; 977 -D-E]
Ratan Lal Adukia and Anr. v. Union of India AIR 1990
SC 104: 1989 (3) SCR 440 - referred to. H
942 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A. 1.5 The Consumer and Carriage Acts, which came
long after the CPC, are more focused and specific
statutes, and therefore, should be held to exclude Section
86. The Supreme Court has previously found as such,
holding that in the fora created by the Consumer Act, "the
B provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable
to a limited extent and not all the provisions of the Code
of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the
proceedings of the National Forum." Rather, rules created
pursuant to the Consumer Act itself govern the procedure
c to be followed in the consumer fora. Even though the
consumer redressal fora utilized summary proceedings,
that "does not mean that proceedings before the
Consumer Forum [are] to be· decided by ignoring the
express statutory provisions of the Carriers Act in a •
proceeding in which a claim is made against a common
0
carrier." [Para 62] [976-G-H; 977-A-B]

Economic Transport Organisation, Delhi v. Charan
Spinning Mills Private Limited and Anr. (2010) 4 SCC 114 -
followed.
E
E. I. C. M. Exports Ltd. v. South Indian Corporation
(Agencies) Ltd. and Anr. 2009 (10) SCALE 22 - overruled.

1.6 It is settled principle of statutory interpretation
that specific statutes that come later in time trump prior
F general statutes. Both the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which came long
after the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, are more focused
and specific statutes and therefore, should be held to
supersede Section 86 of the Code. In fora created by the
G Consumer Act, the provisions of the Code of Civil
Procedure are applicable only to a limited extent, •
therefore, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure
have not been made applicable to the proceedings of the
National Consumer Forum. [Para 65) [977-F-G)
H
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 943

J '
Savita Garg v. Director, National Heart Institute (2004) 8 A
SCC 56: 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 359 - relied on.

State of Kamataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Co-
operative Society and Ors. (2003) 2 SCC 412: 2003 (1) SCR
397 - referred to. B
1.7 The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a
comprehensive and self-contained piece of legislation,
and its object is to decide consumers' complaints
I
expeditiously, via summary procedure. The Consumer
Protection Act, 1986 also permits authorized agents to c
appear on behalf of the complainants in order to ensure
that they are not burdened with the heavy professional
~
fees of lawyers. [Para 66] [978-A-B]

1.8 The Carriage by Air Act, 1972 explicitly provides D
that its rules apply to carriage performed by the State or
by legally constituted public bodies under Chapter 1,
Section 2, Sub-section 1. Thus, it is clear that according
to the Indian Law, the appellant-Foreign Airlines can be
subjected to suit under the Carriage Act, 1972. The E
Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (69 of 1972) is an Act to give
effect to the Convention for the unification of certain rules
?
relating to international carriage by air signed at Warsaw
on the 12th day of October, 1929 and to the said
Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol on the
28th day of September, 1955 and to make provision for
F
applying the rules contained in the said Convention in its
original form and in the amended form (subject to
exceptions, adaptations and modification) to non-
international carriage by air and for matters connected
therewith. In effect, by signing onto the Warsaw G
Convention, the appellant foreign airline~_had expressly
waived its Airlines' right to immunity in cases such as that
sub judice. Therefore, the Central Governments of both
India and Ethiopia have waived that right by passing the
Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and by signing onto the Warsaw H
944 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2011] 9 S.C.R.

A. Convention. [Paras 67 and 68] [978-C-G]
The German Democratic Republic v. The Dynamic
Industrial Undertaking Ltd. AIR 1972 Bombay 27; Kenya
Airways v. Jinibai B. Kheshwala AIR 1998 Bombay 287 -
referred to.
8
1.9 The appellant-Ethiopian Airlines is not entitled to
sovereign immunity with respect to a commercial
transaction is also consonant with the holdings of other
countries' courts and with the growing International Law
C principle of restrictive immunity. The appellant Ethiopian
Airlines must be held accountable for the contractual and
commercial activities and obligations that it undertakes
in India. It may be pertinent to mention that the Parliament ..
has recognized this fact while passing the Consumer
D Protection Act, 1986 and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.
Section 86 was itself, a modification and restriction of the
principle of forejgn sovereign immunity and thus, by
limiting Section 86's applicability, the Parliament through
these incorrect acts, further narrowed a party's ability to
E successfully plead foreign sovereign immunity. In the
modern era, where there is close interconnection
between different countries as far as trade, commerce
and business are concerned, the principle of sovereign
immunity can no longer be absolute in the way that it
F much earlier was. Countries who participate in trade,
commerce and business with different countries ought
to be subjected to normal rules of the market. State
owned entities would be able to operate with impunity,
the rule of law would be degraded and international trade,
G commerce and business will come to a grinding halt.
Therefore, the appellant cannot claim sovereign
immunity. The preliminary objection raised tiy the
appellant before the court is devoid of any merit and must
be rejected. [Paras 70, 72 and 73] [979-D; 980-E-H; 981-
H A-BJ
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 945

j
...,
Deepak Wadhwa v. Aeroflot 24 (1983) Delhi Law Times A
1; Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. The United Arab Republic and
Anr. AIR 1966 SC 230: 1966 SCR 319; Veb Deutfracht
Seereederei Rosto<;k (D.S.R. Lines) a Department of the
German Democratic Republic v new Central jute Mills Co.
I
... Ltd. and Another (1994) 1 SCC 282; Ghaziabad Zita Sahkari B
Bank Ltd. v. Addi. Labour Commissioner and Ors. (2007) 11
SCC 756: 2007 (1) SCR 1007; Maruti Udyog Limited v. Ram
Lal and Ors. (2005) 2 SCC 638: 2005 (1) SCR 790 - referred
to.

Rahimtoo/a v. H. E. H. The Nizam of Hyderabad and Ors.
c
(1957) 3 All E.R. 441; Trendtex Trading Corporation Ltd. v.
Central Bank of Nigeria (1977) 1 All E.R. 881 - referred to.
>
Case Law Reference:
D
24 (1983) Delhi Law Times 1 Referred to Para 6
1966 SCR 319 Referred to Para 10
(1994) 1 sec 282 . Referred to Para 11
2007 (1) SCR 1007 Referred to Para 34 E

2005 (1) SCR 790 Referred to Para 34
.. (2010) 4 sec 114 Followed Para 56,
-.... 62, 63,
74, 75 F

2009 (10) SCALE 22 Overruled Para 56,
63, 74
135 us 467 (1890) · Referred to Para 57
G
178 Mich. 288 Referred to Para 57
'•
1964 SCR 1 Referred to Para 59
AIR 1965 SC 1798 Referred to Para 59
I'
H

•
946 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

Referred to Para 61
•
A 1989 (3) SCR 440
2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 359 Referred to Para 65

2003 (1) SCR 397 Referred to Para 66

AIR 1972 Bombay 27 Referred to Para 69
B ~

AIR 1998 Bombay 287 Referred to Para 69

(1957) 3 All E.R. 441 Referred to Para 70

(1977) 1 All E.R. 881 Referred to Para 71
c Para 74,
2000 (2) SCR 665 Relied on
75

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : From the Judgment
and Order dated 07.01.2004 of the National Consumer
D Disputes Redressal Commission in First Appeal No. 190 of
1996.

K.G. Presswala, Shiv Kumar Suri and Junaisa Rahman for
the Appellant.
E
Rakesh Kr. Khanna, Dr. Rashmi Khanna and Seema Rao
. (for Surya Kant) for the Respondent.

F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DALVEER BHANDARI, J. 1. This appeal is directed
..
.
against the judgment and order of the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, dated 7.1.2004
passed in First Appeal No. 190 of 1996.

2. A two-Judge bench of this Court by its order dated
G 10.11.2009 referred this matter to a larger Bench. The said
order reads as under: ,,

"The questions in this case is whether proceedings before
the Consumer Forum are suits. It appears that there are
H two conflicting judgments on this point- E.l.C.M. Exports
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 947
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

Ltd. v, South Indian Corporation (Agencies) Ltd. and A
Another 2009 (10) SCALE 22 and Patel Roadways
Limited v. Bir/a Yamaha Limited (2000) 4 SCC 91.
Hence we are referring the matter to a larger Bench to
resolve this conflict, to be constituted by Hon'ble the Chief
.... Justice of India." B

BRIEF FACTS:

3. The respondent booked a consignment of Reactive
Dyes with the appellant Ethiopian Airlines to be delivered at
the Dar Es. Salaam, Tanzania on 30.9.1992. The airway bills C
were duly issued by the appellant from its office in Bombay at
the Taj Mahal Hotel for the said consignment. According to the
respondent there was gross delay in arrival of the consignment
... at the destination, which led to deterioration of the goods .
D
4. The respondent filed a complaint on 11.5.1993 before
the Maharashtra State Consumer Dispute Redressal
Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the State
Commission'). Pursuant to the notice issued by the State
Commission, the appellant filed a written statement in which the E
appellant raised a preliminary objection regarding
maintainability of the complaint.

5. On 17.1.1996, the State Commission held that the
complaint filed by the respondent was not maintainable. The
respondent aggrieved by the said order preferred an appeal F
before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the National
Commission'). The National Commission categorically
observed in the impugned judgment that Section 86 of the Code
of Civil Procedure (for short 'C.P.C.') was not applicable since G
the case in dispute is covered under the provisions of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Act').

6. The National Commission further held that Section 13(4) H
948 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A of the Act makes the CPC applicable only for the limited ... •
purpose. As such, the National Commission took the view that
the judgment of the High Court of Delhi delivered in the case
of Deepak Wadhwa v. Aeroflot 24 (1983) Delhi Law Times 1
had no bearing and application in deciding the complaint filed
B by the respondent. I

•
7. The National Commission set aside the order passed
by the State Commission and remitted it to the State
Commission so that the State Commission could decide it
afresh in accordance with law.
c
8. The appellant, aggrieved by the said order, has
preferred this appeal on the ground that a foreign State or its
instrumentality cannot be proceeded against under the Act
without obtaining prior permission from the Central "
~
D Government. The appellant contends that a foreign State or its
instrumentality can legitimately claim sovereign immunity from
being proceeded against under the Act in respect of a civil
claim.
9. It is submitted that, in India, it is clear that there is
E
presumption that sovereign immunity is absolute, but that a
foreign sovereign can still be sued in India under certain
circumstances with the permission of the Government of India.
~
The Central Government may give consent for such a suit if:
F (a) the foreign State has instituted a suit in the Court
against the person desiring to sue it;
(b) the foreign State trades within the legal limits of the
jurisdiction of the Court or;
G (c) the foreign State is in possession of immovable
property situated within those limits and is to be "'
.
sued with reference to such property or for money
charged thereon or;

H
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 949
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
+·
(d) the foreign State has expressly or impliedly waived A
the privilege of immunity.

Relevant case law and submissions

10. Reliance was placed on a judgment of the Constitution
-
~
Bench delivered in the case of Mirza Ali Akbar Kashani v. The
United Arab Republic and Another AIR 1966 SC 230. This
B

Court in para 30 of the said judgment observed as under:

"The effect of the provisions of section 86(1) appears to
be that it makes a statutory provision covering a field which c
would otherwise be covered by the doctrine of immunity
under International Law. It is not disputed that every
sovereign State is competent to make its own laws in
> relation to the rights and liabilities of foreign States to be
.,
sued within its own municipal Courts. Just as an
D
independent sovereign State may statutorily provide for its
own rights and liabilities to sue and be sued, so can it
provide for the rights and liabilities of foreign States to sue
and be sued in its municipal Courts. That being so, it would
be legitimate to hold that the effect of section 86(1) is to
modify to a certain extent the doctrine of immunity E
recognised by International Law. This section provides that
foreign States can be sued within the municipal Courts of
•• India with the consent of the Central Government and when
-;

such consent is granted as required by section 86(1), it
would not be open to a foreign State to rely on the doctrine F
of immunity under International Law, because the municipal
Courts in India would be bound by the statutory provisions,
such as those contained in the Code of Civil Procedure.
In substance, section 86(1) is not merely procedural; it is
...,
.
· in a sense a.counter-part of section 84. Whereas section G
84 confers a right on a foreign State to sue, section 86(1) .
in substance imposes a liability on foreign States to be
sued, though this liability is circumscribed and
safeguarded by the limitations prescribed by it. .. . .. . .. ."
H
950 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A. . 11. Reliance was also placed on another judgment of this
Court in the case of Veb Deutfracht Seereederei Rostock
(D.S. R. Lines) a Department of the German Democratic
Republic v. New Central .lute Mills Co. Ltd. and Another (1994)
1 SCC 282. In para 5 of the judgment this Court held that:
B "One of the principles of International Law is that sovereign
State respects the independence of every other foreign
State. This absolute independence and the international
comity underlines the relationship between sovereign
States.
c
The object of Section 86 of the Code is to give effect to
the principles of International Law. But, in India it is only a
qualified privilege because a suit can be brought with the
consent of the Central Government in certain
D circumstances. Just as an independent sovereign State
may statutorily provide for its own rights and liabilities to
sue and be sued so can it provide rights and liabilities of
foreign States to sue and be sue;d in its Courts. It can be
said that effect of se~ction 86 thus is to modify the extent
E of doctrine of immunity recognised by the International
Law. If a suit is filed in Indian Courts with the consent of
the Central Government as required by Section 86, it shall
,J
not be open to any fcireign State to rely on the doctrine of
immunity. Sub-section (1) of Section 86 says in clear and
unambiguous terms that no foreign State may be sued in
F any court, except with the consent of the Central
Government certifiecl in writing by the Secretary to that
Government. Sub-section (2) prescribes that such consent
shall not be given unless it appears to the Central
Government that the case falls within any of the clauses
G (a) to (d) of sub-sectiion (2) of Section 86. Sub-section (6) •
enjoins that where a request is made to the Central "
Government for the grant of any consent referred to in sub-
section (1), the Central Government shall before refusing
to accede to the request in whole or in part, give to the
H
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 951
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

person making the request a reasonable opportunity of A
being heard.

On a plain reading of different sub-sections of Section 86,
it is apparent that no foreign State may be sued in any
\
court in India, except with the consent of the Central B
;\
Government which has to be certified in writing by the
Secretary to that Government. In view of the provisions
aforesaid, before any action is launched or a suit is filed
against a foreign State, person concerned has to make a
request to the Central Government for grant of the
necessary consent as required by sub-section (1) of
c
Section 86 and the Central Government has to accede to
the said request or refuse the same after taking into
consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case.
).
'\'
......... "
D
12. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. K.G. Presswala, that when interpreting Section
86 of the CPC, it should always be kept in view that the said
Section gives effect to the principles of international law.
E
13. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance
on the judgment of this court delivered in the case of H.H. The
Maharana Sahib Shri Bhagwat Singh Bahadur of Udaipur v.
},
State of Rajasthan and Others AIR 1964 SC 444, where an
~
ex-ruler contended that under section 86 of the CPC, a
F
reference made by the Government under the Industrial
Disputes Act in respect of employees' wages was not
maintainable without the prior consent of the Central
Government. This Court in para 5 of the said judgment held:

"The appellant is recognised under Article 363(22) of the G
Constitution as a Ruler of an Indian State, but Section 86
'
" in terms protects a Ruler from being "sued" and not against
the institution of any other proceeding which is not in the
nature of a suit. A proceeding which does not commence
} with a plaint or petition in the nature of plaint, or where the H
952 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

claim is not in respect of a dispute ordinarily triable in a
civil court, would prima facie not be regarded as falling
within Section 86 Code of Civil Procedure .......... "

14. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
3 the Act specifically states in Section 3 that "the provisions of
this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation to any other + '
law for the time being in forcH." The learned counsel for the
appellant also submitted that this Court in the case of State of
Karnataka v. Vishwabharathi House Building Co-operative
Society and Others (2003) 2 SCC 412 in paragraphs 46 and
c 47 observed as under:

"46. By reason of the provisions of Section 3 of the Act, it
is evident that remedies provided thereunder are not in
.._
derogation of those provided under other laws. The said
D Act supplements and not supplants the jurisdiction of the
civil courts or other statutory authorities.

47. The said Act provides for a further safeguard to the
effect that in the event a complaint involves complicated
issues requiring recording of evidence of experts, the
E
complainant would be a.t liberty to approach the civil court
for appropriate relief . The right of the consumer to
approach the civil court for necessary relief has, therefore,
.i
been provided under the Act itself."
r
F 15. The learned counseil for the appellant further submitted
that a claim which is ordina.rily triable in a Civil Court can also
be tried in the Consumer Court if:
(i) an Unfair Trade Practice or a restrictive trade
G practice has been adopted by any trader or service
provider;
.,,, I

(ii) the goods boug:it by a person or agreed to be
bought by him suffer from one or more defects;
H (iii) the services hired or availed of or agreed to be ~!
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 953
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
~

hired or availed of by him suffer from deficiency in A
any respect;

(iv) a Trader or :t Service Provider as the case may be
has charged hr the goods or the services a price
)
..;
in excess of tht. price: B
(a) fixed by or under any law for the time being
in force;

(b) displayed on the goods or any package
containing such goods; c
(c) displayed on the price list exhibited by him
or under any law for the time being in force;
,\
(d) agreed between the parties
D
(v) goods which would be hazardous to life and safety
when used are being offered for sale to the public

(e) in contravention of any standards relating to
safety of such goods as required to be
E
complied with by or under any law for the time
being in force;
' (f) if the trader could have known with due
diligence that the goods' so offered are
unsafe to the public. F

(vi) services which are hazardous or likely to be
hazardous to the life and safety of the public when
used are being offered by the Service Provider
could have known with due diligence injurious to life
G
' and safety.
'
16. Mr. Presswala also submitted that a Complaint and a
Plaint is one and the same thing and a proceeding in the
Consumer Court, though not a suit under the Civil Procedure
Code, is still a proceeding which is in the nature of a suit and ·H
954 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A is commenced by a proceeding in the nature of a Plaint (i.e. a
Complaint and is in respect of a claim which is ordinarily triable
by a Civil Court). It is submitted by Mr. Presswala that Section
86 of the CPC would be squarely applicable to the proceedings
under the Act.

....
B
17. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted
that the provisions of the CPC are not applicable to the
proceedings under the Act. Mr. Presswala also submitted that
the District Forums, the State Commission and the National
Commission have all the! trappings of a Civil Court.
C Consequently, the proceedings before these fora are legal
proceedings.

18. According to the appellant, the interpretation given by
the National Commission is totally untenable and cannot be
D sustained.

19. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Khanna, the learned senior counsel
for the respondent submitted that this appeal not only involves
the applicability of section 86 of the CPC and the Act, but also
E raises the following questions:
(a) Vvhether the Consumer Protection Act being a later
and a Special Statute will have overriding effect
over the provision:s of general and previous Statute
(i.e. the Civil Proc:edure Code, 1908?)
F
(b) Whether in view of the provisions of the Carriage
by Air Act, 1972, specially, Section 7 read with
Rules 1, 2, 18, 1fl & 28 of First Schedule framed
under Section 3 c1f the Act thereof, the Appellant
G Ethiopian Airlines will be deemed to have submitted
to the jurisdiction of the Indian Courts for the
purpose of Code 1of Civil Procedure, 1908?

(c) Whether the provisions of Carriage by Air Act,
1972 will be rea1d into the provisions of the
H Consumer Protection Act, 1986?
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 95fi
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
.... ~
-!..
20. Learned senior advocate for the respondent also A
submitted that the Act is a complete code in itself. It sets forth
the procedure to be followed in dealing with complaints filed
before the fora provided for in the Act as well as with the
Appeals arising from the orders of those fora. Section 13 of
J this Act provides for the procedure to be followed by the fora B
on receipt of the complaint. Sub-sections 4, 5 and 6 of section
13, which are relevant for the purpose of the present case, read
as under:

"13. Procedure on admission of complaint: (1) The
District Forum shall, on admission of a complaint, c
if it relates to any goods,
)()()()()()(
.~

)()()()()()(
D
(4) For the purposes of this section, the District Forum
shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil
Court under Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of
1908) while trying a suit in respect of the following
matters, namely: E

(i) the summoning and enforcing the attendance
\. of any defendant or witness and examining
the witness on oath;
F
(ii) the discovery and production of any
document or other material object producible
as evidence;
(iii) the reception of evidence on affidavits; • ',
G
(iv) the requisitioning of the report of the
·--.
. concerned analysis or test from the
-· appropriate laboratory or from any other .
relevant source;
H
956 SUPREME COURT HEPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

(v) issuing of any commission for the
examination of any witness; and
(vi) any other matter which may be prescribed.

(5) Every proceeding loefore the District Forum shall be
B deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of sections 193 and 228 of the Indian
Penal Code (45 of 1860), and the District Forum
shall be deemed to be a civil court for the purposes
of Section 195 and chapter XXVI of the Code of
c Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
(6) Where the complainant is a consumer referred to
in sub-clause (iv) of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 2, the prcivisions of rule 8 of Order 1 of the
D first Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(5 of 1908) shall apply subject to the modification
that every reference therein to a suit or decree shall
be construed as a reference to a complaint or the
order of the District Forum thereon."
E 21. This Court in Savitcr Garg v. Director, National Heart
Institute (2004) 8 SCC 56 para 7 has observed that:

" ......... Therefore, as far as the Commission is
concerned, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1

F are applicable to a limitE~d extent and not all the provisions
of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the
proceedings of the National Forum ......... ."
?2. In para 10 of the said judgment the Court further
observed as under:
G
"The Consumer Forum is primarily meant to provide better j
protection in the interest of the consumers and not to short-
circuit the matter or to defeat the claim on technical
grounds......... ."
H
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 957
..
' \
4.
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
23. The respondent contends that a bare perusal of A
Section 13(4), (5) and (6) clearly demonstrate that as far as the
fora created under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 for
deciding consumer disputes are concerned, the provisions of
the CPC are applicable to a limited extent only and not all
j provisions of CPC are made applicable thereto. B
24. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 30A of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986, the Consumer Protection
Regulations, 2005 have been framed. Regulation 26 of these
Regulations specifically provides that in all the proceedings
before the consumer forum endeavour shall be made by the
c
parties and their counsel to avoid the use of provisions of CPC.
Regulation 26 of these Regulations reads as under:
,.
~
"26. Miscellaneous: (1) In all proceedings before the
Consumer Forum, endeavour shall be made by the parties D
and their counsel to avoid the use of provisions of Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908).
Provided that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 may be applied which have been referred to in the E
Act or in the rules made thereunder."

25. The aforesaid view of the specific provisions of
Section 13(4) of the Consumer Protection Act read with
, Regulation 26, makes it clear that the provisions of the CPC
in general are not applicable in the proceedings under the F
Consumer Protection Act, except to the extent provided for
under Section 13 of the Act.
26. Mr. Khanna also submitted that the controversy involved
in this case Is no longer res integra, as evidenced by Savita G
' Garg (supra).
'
27. Mr. Khanna further submitted that the provisions of the
" CPC are not applicable to the proceedings under the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and consequently, the bar
H
958 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
.....
+- '
A under Section 86 of the CPC likewise does not apply to the
proceedings initiated under the Consumer Protection Act,
1986.

28. Mr. Khanna contended that the impugned order passed
B by the National Commission is in consonance with the legal ·
position crystallized in a serii:~s of judgments of this Court and
calls for no interference.

29. Mr. Khanna gave the historical background of the
enactment of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. He submitted
C that the interests of consumeirs around the world had drawn the
attention of the United Nations for a long time and that after
long deliberations and continued consultations, the United
Nations in its General A:ssembly adopted guidelines for ..
consumer protection. The relevant portion of the guidelines is
D given as under:

"1. Taking into account the interests and needs of
consumers in all countries, particularly in developing
countries, recognize that consumers often face imbalances
E in economic terms, e~ducational levels, and bargaining
power; and bearing in mind that consumers should have
the right of access to non-hazardous products, as well as
the right to promotf:l just, equitable and sustainable
economic and social development. These guidelines for
F consumer protection have the following objectives:

(a' To assist countries in achieving or maintaining
adequate protection for their population as
consumers;

G (b) To facilitate production and distribution patterns
responsive to the needs and desires of consumers;
(c) To encourag1e high levels of ethical conduct for
those engag1ed in the production and distribution of
.-
goods and services to consumers;
H
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 959
~·- [DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

(d) . To· assist countries in .curbing abusive business A
practices by all enterprises at the national and
international levels which adversely affect
consumers;

(e) To facilitate the development of independent B
consumer groups;

(f) To further international cooperation in the field of
consumer protection;

(g) To encourage the development of market conditions C
which provide consumers with greater choices at
lower prices.

5. All enterprises should obey the relevant laws and
regulations of the countries in which they do
0
business. They should also conform to the
appropriate provisions of international standards for
consumer protection to which the competent
authorities of the country in question have agreed.
(hereinafter references to international standards in E
the guidelines should be viewed in the context of
this paragraph).

28. Governments should establish or maintain legal
and/or administrative measures to enable
consumers or, as appropriate, relevant F
organizations to obtain redress through formal or
informal procedures that are expeditious, fair,
inexpensive and accessible. Such procedures
should take particular account of the needs of low
income consumers." G
30. Mr. Khanna submitted that these guidelines were
considered by this Court in the case of Vishwabharti House
Building Cooperative Society and others (supra).
H
960 SUPREME COUHT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A 31. Mr. Khanna also submitted that the framework for the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was provided by a resolution
dated 9.4.1985 of (the General Assembly of the United Nations
Organisation) which is commonly known as "Consumer
Protection Resolution No. 39/248". India is a signatory to the
B said resolution. The Ai::t was enacted in view of the ...I
aforementioned resolution of General Assembly of the United
Nations.

32. The learned couns1el for the respondent contended that
the Act was enacted to provide better protection for the
C consumers and their interests. By this Act, the legislature sought
to constitute quasi judicial Tribunals/Commissions as an
alternative system of adjudicating consumer disputes via
summary proceedings. That is the whole purpose of providing
for a separate three tiered system comprised of a District
D Forum, State Commission and the National Commission which
would provide inexpensive and speedy remedies to consumers.
In creating those fora, the IHgislature required the fora to arrive
at conclusions based on reasons following the rules of natural
justice. He also submitted that while enacting the Consumer
E Protection Act, Parliament was fully aware that the provisions
of the CPC were available for the trial of a claim of a consumer
dispute, yet, in its wisdom, Parliament decided not to apply the
procedure provided in the CPC to the proceedings under the
Act. Instead, Parliament chose to apply only limited provisions
F of the Code of Civil Procedure to the complaints to be
entertained under the Act. Specifically, in Sections 13 (4), (5)
and (6), the Act explicitly provided for limited applicability of the
provisions of Code of Civil Procedure.

G 33. Mr. Khanna further submitted that the Act is a special
statute ·enacted to provide! remedies to a special class of
litigants, namely the consumers, by a special procedure
provided for under the statute, instead of the usual procedure
set forth under the Code of Civil Procedure.

H 34. The learned counsel for the respondent also submitted
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 961
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
~·-"
that the general legal principle of statutory interpretation of A
generalia specia/ibus non-derogant and generalibus specialia
derogant applied. That is, if a special provision is made on a
certain matter, that matter is excluded from the general
provision. Mr. Khanna also stated that these principles have
j ' been applied by this Court in resolving the disputes between B
two Acts as well as in the construction of statutory rules and
statutory orders. Mr. Khanna referred this Court's decision in
the case of Ghaziabad Zita Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addi. Labour
Commissioner and Others (2007) 11 SCC 756. In para 61 of
that judgment, this Court held that the Uttar Pradesh c
Cooperative Societies Act, which is a complete code in itself
regarding employment in cooperative societies, and its
machinery and provisions will have overriding effect on the
> general Act, the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
~
Thus, the Industrial Disputes Act was held to have no D
applicability and to be excluded after enforcement of the Uttar
Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, which was a later and a
special Act. Similarly, this Court in the case of Maruti Udyog
Limited v. Ram Lal and Others (2005) 2 SCC 638 in para 42
observed as under:
E
"42. In Solidaire India Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial
Services Ltd. and Others [(2001) 3 SCC 71), it is stated:
,J

.. 9. It is clear that both these Acts are special Acts .
This Court has laid down in no uncertain terms that F
in such an event it is the later Act which must
prevail. The decisions cited in the above context are
as follows: Maharashtra Tubes Ltd. v. State
Industrial & Investment Corpn. of Maharashtra
Ltd., Sarwan Singh v. Kasturi Lal; Allahabad Bank G
v. Canara Bank and Ram Narain v. Simla
'" Banking & Industrial Co. Ltd.

10. We may notice that the Special Court had in
another case dealt with a similar contention. In
Bhoruka Steel Ltd. v. Fairgrowth Financial H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A Services Ltcf. it had been contended that recovery
proceedings under the Special Court Act should be
stayed in view of the provisions of the 1985 Act.
Rejecting this contention, the Special Court had
come to the conclusion that the Special Court Act
B being a later enactment would prevail. The
headnote which brings out succinctly the ratio of the
said decision is as follows:

Where there are two special statutes which
contain non obstante clauses the later statute
c shall prevail. This is because at the time of
enactment of the later statute, the Legislature
was aware of the earlier legislation and its
non obstante clause. If the Legislature still
confers the later enactment with a non
D obstante clause it means that the Legislature
wanted that enactment to prevail. If the
Legislature does not want the later
enac:tment to prevail then it could and would
provide in the later enactment that the
E provisions of the earlier enactment would
continue to apply."

35. Mr. Khanna also submitted that the Act is a special and
a later Act which will prevail over the provisions of the CPC,
F which is a general and previous statute. He submitted that the
Act is a complete Code in itself as regards the disputes
covered under it. As such, the general statute i.e. CPC can have
no applicability and stands excluded after the enactment of the
Act.
G 36. Mr. Khanna fL1rther contended that the Carriage by Air
Act, 1972. (hereinaftf~r referred to as 'Air Act') again is a
special Act regarding international carriage. The Air Act was
enacted to give effect to the Convention for unification of Rules
relating to international carriage by air signed at Warsaw on
H 12.10.1929, as amended by Hague Protocol dated 28.9.1955
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 963
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
.,.,
and the Montreal Convention dated 28.9.1999. India enacted A
this Act as it is a signatory to the Warsaw Convention of 1929
governing the liabilities of air carrier in respect of international
carriage of passengers, baggage and cargo by air. The
preamble of the Air Act reads as under:
I
B
" "An Act to give effect to the convention for the unification
of certain rules relating to international carriage by air
J signed at Warsaw on the 12th day of October, 1929 and
to the said Convention as amended by the Hague Protocol
on the 28th day of May, 1999 and to make provision for c
applying the rules contained in the said Convention in its
original form and in the amended form {subject to
exceptions, adaptations and modifications) to non-
international carriage by air and for matters connected
'{
therewith." D
37. Section 2 {ii) of the Air Act defines "Convention" to
mean Convention for unification of certain rules relating to
international carriage by air signed at Warsaw on 12.10.1929.
Section 2 {ii) reads as under:
E
"2 {ii) Convention means the Convention for the unification
of certain rules relating to international carriage by air
signed at Warsaw on the 12th day of October, 1929."
• • 38. Section 3 of the Air Act provides that the Rules
F
contained in the first schedule {the provisions of the Convention
relating to the rights and liability of the carriers, passengers,
consignors and other persons), shall have the force of law in
India with respect to any carriage by air to which these rules
apply, irrespective of the nationality of the air craft performing
the carriage. Sub-Section 2 of section 3 provides that the high G
contracting parties to the Convention and date. of enforcement
of the said Convention shall be such as are included in Part-I
of the Annexure. Section 3 reads as under:
"3. Application of Convention to India: H
964 SUPREME COURT !REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A (1) The rules contained in the First Schedule, being the
..
provisions of the Convention relating to the rights .
and liabilities of carriers, passengers, consignors,
consignees and other persons shall, subject to the
provisions of this ctct, have the force of law in India
B in relation to any carriage by air to which those rules )<
'
apply, irrespective of the nationality of the aircraft
performing the carriage.

(2) For the purpose of this Act, the High Contracting
Parties to the Convention and the date of
c enforcement of thE~ said Convention shall be such
as are included in part-I of the Annexure-1.

(3) Any reference in the first schedule to the territory of
any High Contracting Party to the Convention shall
D be construed as a reference to all the territories in
respect of which he is a party.

(4) Any reference in the first schedule to agents of the
carrier shall be construed as including a reference
to servants of the Garrier.
E
(5) The Central Government may, having regard to the
objects of this act, and if it considers necessary or
expedient so to do, by notification in the official
gazette, add to, or, as the case may be, omit from, ~

F Part I of the Annexure, any High Contracting Party
and on such addition, or as the case may be,
omission, such High Contracting Party shall be or
shall cease to be, a High Contracting Party."

G 39. Section 7 of the Air Act provides that every high
contracting party to the Conven~ion, shall for the purpose of any
suit brought in a court in India in accordance with the provisions
of rule 28 of the first schedule or of the second schedule as
the case may be to enforce a claim in respect of the carriage
undertaken by him be deemed to have submitted to the
H
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 965
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
jurisdiction of that Court and to be a person for purpose of A
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Secti.on 7 reads as under:

"7. Provisions regarding suits against High Contracting
Parties who undertake carriage by Air. (1) Every High
Contracting Party to the Convention or the amended
I B
,J
Convention, as the case may be, who has not availed
himself of the provisions of the Additional Protocol thereto
shall, for the purpose of any suit brought in a Court in India
in accordance with the provisions of rule 28 of the First
Schedule, or of the Second Schedule, as the case may
be, to enforce a claim in respect of carriage undertaken c
by him, be deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction
of that Court and to be a person for the purpose of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
>
(2) The High Court may make rules of procedure providing D
for all matters which may be expedient to enable such suits
to be instituted and carried on.
(3) Nothing in this section shall authorize any Court to
attach or sell any property of a High Contracting Party to
E
the Convention or to the amended Convention."

40. The First Schedule to the Act vide Rule 1 provides that
the Rules under this Schedule shall apply to all international
~ carriage of persons, luggage or goods, performed by aircraft
for reward. Sub Rule 2 defines the "High Contracting Party". F
Sub Rule 3 defines International Carriage. The provisions of
Rule 1 read as under:
"Rule1: (1) These rules apply to all international carriage
of persons, luggage or. goods, performed by aircraft for G
reward. They apply also to such carriage when performed
' gratuitously by an Air Transport undertaking.
"'
(2) In these rules, "High Contracting Party" means a High
Contracting Party to the Convention.
H
966 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A (3) For the purposes of these rules the expression,
"international carriage" means any carriage in which
according to the contract made by the parties, the place
of departure and the place of destination, whether or not
there be a break in the carriage or a transshipment, are
B situated either within thei territories of two High Contracting I
Parties, or within the territory of a single High Contracting '-

Party, if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory
subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority
of another power, even though that power is not a party to
c the Convention. A ca1rriage without such an agreed
stopping place between territories subject to the
sovereignty, suzerainty,, mandate or authority of the same
High Contracting Party is not deemed to be international
for the purposes of the1se Rules."
•
D 41. Rule 2 of these Rules, provides that these rules apply
to carriage performed by the State or by legally constituted
public bodies. Rule 2 reads as under:
"2. (1) These rules apply to carriage performed by
E the State or by legally constituted public bodies
provided it falls within the conditions laid down in
rule 1.

(2) These rules do not apply to carriage performed
under the terms of any International Postal
F Convention."
42. Rule 18 provides for liability of the carrier for damages
and Rule 19 provides for liability of the carrier for damages
occasioned by delay. Rule 18 and 19 read as under:
G
"18. (1) The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the
event of the destruction or loss of, or of damage to,
any registered luggage or any goods, if the
occurrence which caused the damage so sustained
took place during the carriage by air.
H
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 967
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]

(2) The carriage by air within the meaning of sub- A
rule (1) comprises the period during which the
luggage or goods are in charge of the carrier,
whether in any aerodrome or on board an aircraft,
\ or, in the case of a landing outside an aerodrome
j
in any place whatsoever. B

(3) The period of the carriage by air does not
extend to any carriage by land, by sea or by river
performed outside an aerodrome. If, however, such
a carriage takes place. in the performance of a
contract for carriage by air, for the purpose of C
loading, delivery or transshipment, any damage is
presumed, subject to proof to the contract, to have
been the result of an event which took place during
the carriage by air.
D
19. The carrier is liable for damage occasioned by
delay in the carriage by air of passengers, luggage
or goods."

43. Rule 28 provides for Territorial Jurisdiction for suing E
for damages which reads as under:

"28. An action for damages must be brought at the
option of the plaintiff either before the Court having
jurisdiction where the carri~r is ordinarily resident,
or has his principal place of business, or has an F
establishment by which the contract has been made
or before the Court having jurisdiction at the place
of destination."

44. As per the Annexure to the Air Act under Section 3 sub G
Section 2, Part-I, vide entry 47, Ethiopia is a High Contracting
Party to the Convention w.e.f. 12.11.1950.

45. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rules in the First
Schedule, which has the force of law as per Section 3 of the
Air Act, read with Section 7 leaves no room or doubt that a state
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A carrier or legally constituted public body of the international
carrier is deemed to have submitted to the jurisdiction of the
courts in India, including for the purpose of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908.
'
46. Mr. Khanna also submitted that even otherwise Section >.-
8
86(2) of the CPC provides that the consent of the Central
Government can be given with respect to a specified suit or to
several specified suits 01r with respect to all suits of any
specified class or classes. Section 86 of the CPC reads as
under:
c
"86. Suits against foreign Rules, Ambassadors and
Envoys: (1) No foreign state may be sued in any
Court otherwisf~ competent to try the suit except with ..
the consent of the Central Government certified in
D writing by a Sf~cretary to that Government:
Provided that a person may, as a tenant of
immovable property, sue without such consent as
aforesaid (a foreign State) from whom he holds or
claims to hold the property.
E
(2) Such consent may be given with respect to a
specified suit or to several specified suits or with
respect to all suits of any specified class or classes, •
and may speicify, in the case of any suit or class of
F suits, the court in which (the foreign state) may be
sued, but it shall not be given, unless it appears to
the Central Government that (the foreign State) -
(a) has instituted a suit in the Court against the person
G desiring to :sue (it), or
(b) by (itself) or another, trades within the local limits
of the jurisdiction of the Court, or
(c) is in possf~ssion of immovable property situated
H within those limits and is to be sued with reference
....
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 969
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
-I·
to such property or for money charged thereon, or A

(d) has expressly or impliedly waived the privilege
accorded to (it) by this section."

\ 47. Thus, the provisions of Section 7 of the Air Act read
.l
with Rules in the first schedule makes it clear that there is a B
consent deemed to be granted by the central government
contemplated under Section 86(1) of Code of Civil Procedure
for a specified class of suits under the Air Act.

48. Mr. Khanna also referred to Section 3 of the Act and c
submitted that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to
and not in derogation of the provisions of any other laws for the
time being in force .
•
49. This Court in the case of Patel Roadways Limited
D
(supra) has considered this question and has laid down that
the Disputes Redressal Agency provided for in the Act will have
jurisdiction to entertain complaints in which the claim for loss
or damage of goods entrusted to a carrier for transportation is
in dispute. This Court also noted that the term "suit" in Section
9 of the Carriage Act was applicable both the cases filed in E
the Civil Court and to proceedings before the National
Commission that decides the complaints by consumers
)
following summary procedure. Mr. Khanna further contended
... that the view taken by this Court in Patel Roadways Limited
(supra) has been affirmed by the Constitution Bench of this F
Court in the case of Economic Transport Organisation, Delhi
v. Charan Spinning Mills Private Limited and Another (2010)
4 sec 114. In paras 53 to 57 of that case, this Court observed
as under:
G
'• "53. Section 14(1)(d) of the Act provides that the Forum
under the Act can direct payment of compensation
awarded by it to the consumer for any loss or injury'
suffered by the consumer due to the negligence of
the opposite party. This, according to the appellant, H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A makes it mandatory for the complainant to establish
negligence on the part of the opposite party i.e. the
~ --
carrier. It is further contended that presumption of
negligence und1er Section 9 of the Carriers Act,
1865 (which provides that in any suit brought
B against a common carrier for the loss, damage or
•
non-delivery of' the goods entrusted to him for
carriage, it shall not be necessary for the plaintiff
to prove that such loss, damage or non-delivery of
goods was owing to the negligence or criminal act
c of the carrier, his servants and agents) is applicable
only to a civil s1Jit, and not to a complaint under the
Act which specifically contemplates establishment
of negligence by evidence. It is submitted that in
this case the compensation has been awarded •
even though no evidence was led by the
D
complainants about negligence of the driver of the
appellant.
54. It is no doubt true that Section 14(1 )(d) of the Act
contemplates award of compensation to the
E consumer for any loss suffered by the consumer
due to the negligence of the opposite party (the
carrier). Section 9 of the Carriers Act does not lay
down a proposition that a carrier will be liable even
if there was no negligence on its part. On the other "
F hand, it merely raises a presumption that when
there is loss. or damage or non-delivery of goods
entrusted to a carrier, such loss, damage or non-
delivery waf; due to the negligence of the carrier,
its servant and agents. Thus where the consignor
G establishes• loss or. damage or non-delivery of
goods, it is deemed that negligence on the part of •
the carrier is established. The carrier may avoid "
liability if it establishes that the loss, damage or
non-deliv1~ry was due to an act of God or

H circumstances beyond its control. Section 14(1)(d)
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 971
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
~
--j
of the Act does not operate to relieve the carrier A
against the presumption of negligence created
under Section 9 of the Carriers Act.
55. The contention of the appellant that the presumption
l
-! under Section 9 of the Carriers Act is available only
in suits filed before civil courts and not in other civil B
proceedings under other Acts, is not tenable. This
Court in Patel Roadways Ltd. (supra) has
observed: (SCC pp. 106-07, paras 47, 48 & 49)

The principle regarding the liability of a carrier c
contained in Section 9 of the Carriers Act, namely,
that the liability of a carrier is that of an insurer and
. that in a case of loss or damage to goods
entrusted to the carrier the plaintiff need not prove
negligence, are applicable in a proceeding before D
the Consumer Forum. The term "suit" has not been
defined in the Carriers Act nor is it provided in the
said Act that the term "suit" will have the same
meaning as in the Civil Procedure Code. Therefore,
the term "suit" has to be understood in its ordinary
E
dictionary meaning. In that sense, term "suit" is a
generic term. taking within its sweep all
proceedings initiated by a party for realisation of a
~ right vested in him under law. It is true that a
proceeding before Consumer Forum is ordinarily a
summary proceeding and in an appropriate case F
where the Commission feels that the issues raised
are too contentious to be decided in summary
proceedings it may refer parties to a civil court.
That, however, does not mean that proceedings
before the Consumer Forum is to be decided by G
\
ignoring the express statutory provisions of the
Carriers Act in a proceeding in which a claim is
made against a common carrier. A proceeding
before the Consumer Forum comes within the
sweep of term "suit". H
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.
..
A 56. Again, in Economic Transport Organization v.
Dharwad District Khadi Gramudyog Sangh (2000)
5 Sec
78 this Court reiterated the principle stated
in Patel Roadways and added the following:
(Economic Transport case (supra) sec
p. 79, para
B 2)
"2.... Even assuming that Section 9 of the
Carriers. Act, 1865 does not apply to the
cases before the Consumer Fora under the
Consumer Protection Act, the principle of
c common law abovementioned gets attracted
to all these cases coming up before the
Consumer Fora. Section 14(1 )(d) of the
Consumer Protection Act has to be •
understood in that light and the burden of
0 proof !gets shifted to the carriers by the
application of the legal presumption under
the common law. Section 14(1)(d) has to be
underntood in that manner. The complainant
can di:scharge the initial onus, even if it is laid
E on him under Section 14(1)(d) of the
Consumer Protection Act, by relying on
Section 9 of the Carriers Act. It will, therefore,
be for the carrier to prove absence of
neglis1ence."
F
57. We reiterate the said settled position and reject the
contention of the appellant that the presumption
under Section 9 of the Carriers Act is not available
in a proceeding under the Consumer Protection Act
and that therefore, in the absence of proof of
G negligence, it is not liable to compensate the ,•
respondents for the loss."

50. Mr. Khanna further submitted that in the case of
E.l.C.M. Exports Ltd. v. South Indian Corporation (Agencies)
H Ltd. and Another 2009 (10) SCALE 22, this Court has held
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 973
"! ---<
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
firstly that the cases filed before the consumer forum are not A
suits within the meaning of Section 9 of CPC and secondly the
limitation of two years for filing a case under the Act as provided
vide Section 24 (A) of the Act will be applicable instead of
) Article Ill, Clause 6 of the schedule of the Indian Carriage of
Goods by Sea Act, 1925, which provides for limitation of one B
year extendable by three months at the discretion of the Court.
According to learned counsel for the respondent there is no
conflict between the judgments of this Court in the cases of
E.l.C.M. Exports (supra) and Patel Roadways Limited (supra).
According to him the provisions of Carriage by Air Act, 1972 c
have to be read into the provisions of the Act.

,. 51. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
carefully perused relevant cases cited at the Bar. The Central
Question which requires adjudication is whether the appellant
Ethiopian Airlines is entitled to sovereign immunity in this case? D

52. The short question which falls for our adjudication is
whether the proceedings before the Consumer Forum are suits.
53. The term "suit" has not been defined in the. Carriage E
by Air Act, 1972 nor is it provided in the said Act that the term
... "suit" will have the same meaning as in the Civil Procedure
Code. Therefore, the term "suit" has to be understood in its
x ordinary dictionary meaning. In that sense, the term "suit" is a
generic term taking within its sweep all proceedings initiated
F
by a party for realisation of the right vested in him in law. In this
view of the matter, we have to look to the dictionary meaning
of the word "suit".
54. According to Black's Law Dictionary, the word "suit"
means "any proceeding by a party or parties against another G
in a court of law."
55. In common parlance, the term "suit" is taken to include
all proceedings of a judicial or quasi-judicial nature in which the
disputes of aggrieved parties are adjudicated before an H
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A impartial forum. Proceedings before the Consumer fora fall
squarely within that definition.
56. It has been held in Patel Roadways Limited (supra)
that proceedings before the Consumer Forums come within the
B sweep of the term "suit". This judgment has been approved by
a Constitution Bench of this Court in Economic Transport
Organization (supra). Therefore, the controversy involved in this
case is finally settled and we are bound by the decision of the
Constitution Bench and this case has to be ruled in terms of
C what has been decided by the Constitution Bench in Economic
Transport Organisation (supra).
57. In the same vein, the U.S. Supreme Court has read
the term "suit" broadly, finding that a "suit" is "any proceeding .
in a court of justice by which a person pursues therein that
D remedy which the law affords him," Upshur County v. Rich, 135
US 467 (1890). Likewise, "the modes of proceeding may be
various, but if a right is !litigated between parties in a court of
justice, the proceeding ll:>y which the decision of the court is
sought is a suit." Id. The Michigan Supreme Court similarly
E found that "the word ["suit"], as applied to legal controversies,
both by the legal profeission and others, is now used and
recognized as a generic term of broad significance, often
understood and used, even by legislatures and courts, to
designate almost any proceeding." Patterson v. Standard
F Accident Insurance Co., 178 Mich. 288. The proceedings held
before the consumer redressal fora easily fall within the
aforementioned definitions : these are proceedings in which
consumers may pursue the remedies afforded to them by the
Consumer Protection Act and other laws and where the rights
G of the parties are fully li1tigated by an organ of justice.
58. However, notwithstanding the fact that proceedings of
the National Commissi.on are "suits" under the Carriers Act,
vide the expressio unius principle, The Consumer Protection
Act, 1986 clearly enumerates those provisions of the CPC that
H are applicable to proceedings before the consumer fora. Such
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v.. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 975
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
\,
... provisions include 13(4), in which the Consumer Protection Act, A
1986 vests those powers vested in a civil court under the' CPC
to the District Forum. However, according to the principle of
expressio unius, because the legislature expressly made the
aforementioned provisions of the CPC applicable to the
consumer proceedings, the legislature is, therefore, deemed to B
1 have intentionally excluded all other provisions of the CPC from
applying to the said proceedings. This is particularly true since,
as explained above, the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 sets
forth an exhaustive list of procedures, distinguishable from those
required under the CPC, that the consumer redressal fora must c
follow. Therefore, since the Consumer Protection Act does not
state that Section 86 applies to the consumer fora's
proceedings, that Section of the CPC should be hetd to be not
applicable.
"I

59. Likewise, the CPC itself does not claim to make 0
Section 86 applicable to proceedings before the consumer
fora. lnstead1the CPC includes a saving clause, providing that
"in the absence of any specific provision to the contrary, nothing
in [the CPC] shall be deemed to limit or otherwise affect any
special.... law ... or any special form of procedure prescribed, E
by or under any other law.. ." In addition, Section 86 only applies
to a "suit in any Court". This term should be. understood
differently than the term "court" discussed above because the
::. CPC refers exclusively to Civil Courts. In particular, the CPC
specifically refers to the District Courts, the High Courts, and F
the Supreme Court and makes little if any reference to other,
quasi-judicial fora like the consumer redressal bodies at issue
here. This interpretation has been approved by the Supreme
Court, in H.H. The Maharana Sahib Shri Bhagwat Singh
Bahadur of Udaipur {supra). In that case, the Apex Court found G
that the phrase "sued in any Court" must be strictly construed
\ and confined to "suits proper" and thus held that Section 86 did
not bar adjudication of an industrial dispute in an industrial
Tribunal. Similarly, in Nawab Usmanali Khan v. Sagarrna/, AIR
1965 SC 1798, this Court found that Section 87(8) does not H
976 SUPREME COUHT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A apply to proceedings under the Arbitration Act. Similarly,
Section 86 and 87 should be found inapplicable to the
consumer redressal fora's proceedings at issue here.

60. Moreover, Section 86 of the CPC is inapplicable
because the legislative intent is deem to exclude older and
8
more general statute by rnore recent and special statutes : the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the Carriage by Air Act,
1972. And, under these Acts, Ethiopian Airlines is not entitled
to sovereign immunity in a suit like that at issue here. Thus,
consent of the Central Government is not required to subject
C Ethiopian Airline to suit in an Indian court, let alone in a
consumer redressal forum.

61 . In Ratan Lal Adukia and Another v. Union of India,
AIR 1990 SC 104, the Apex Court found that Section 80 of the
D Railways Act, 1890, substituted 1961, was a special provision
and self-contained code and that it impliedly repealed in
respect of suits covemd by it the general provisions of the
CPC. The Railways Act provides for a forum in which a suit for
compensation for loss of life of, or personal injury to, a
E passenger for loss, destruction, damage, deterioration or non-
delivery of animals or goods against a railway administration
may be brought. This is very much akin to the fora created by
the Consumer Protectkm Act. Thus, a similar finding should be
made here : the Consumer Protection and Carriers Acts must
F be deemed special Acts bypassing Section 86 of the CPC,
with respect to suits covered by those special Acts.
62. That is, the Consumer and Carriage Acts, which came
long after the CPC, ar•~ more focused and specific statutes, and
therefore should be held to exclude Section 86. The Supreme
G Court has previously found as such, holding that in the fora
created by the Consumer Act, "the provisions of the Code of ,.
Civil Procedure are applicable to a limited extent and not all
the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made
applicable to the proceedings of the National Forum." Rather,
H rules created pursuant to the Consumer Act itself govern the
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 977
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
. "' 4
procedure to be followed in the consumer fora. Similarly, a A
.constitutional Bench of this Court, in Economic Transport
Organisation (supra) found that even though the consumer
redressal fora utilized summary proceedings, that "does not
mean that proceedings before the Consumer Forum [are] to be
I decided by ignoring the express statutory provisions of the B
-+
Carriers Act in a proceeding in which a claim is made against
a common carrier."

63. In view of the Constitution Bench judgment in Economic
Transport Organisation (supra) the view which has been taken
by the two-Judge Bench of this Court in E.l.C.M. Exports
c
(supra) is wholly untenable and unsustainable in law.

64. Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure is
i
' inapplicable to the present case because the older and more
general statute has been excluded by more recent special D
statute, namely, Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the
Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Ethiopian Airlines is not entitled to
sovereign immunity in the suit at issue in the present case.
Therefore, any other consent of the Central Government is not
required to subject the appellant, Ethiopian Airlines, to a suit in E
an Indian Court.
65. It is settled principle of statutory interpretation that
;,
specific statutes that come later in time trump prior general
statutes. Both the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 and the
F
Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which came long after the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, are more focused and specific statutes
and therefore should be held ta supersede Section 86 of the
Code. This Court in Savita Garg (supra) has clearly laid down
that the principle that in fora created by the Consumer Act, the
provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable only G
\ to a limited extent, therefore, the provisions of the Co~e of Civil
Procedure have not been made applicable to the proceedings
of the National Consumer Forum.
66. This court in Vishwabharathi House Building Coop. H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011) 9 S.C.R.

A Society and Others (supra) dealt with the object of the
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 : to provide expeditious
adjudication of consumers' complaints by adopting summary
procedure. The Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is a
comprehensive and self-contained piece of legislation, and its
B object is to decide consumers' complaints expeditiously, via
summary procedure. Thei Consumer Protection Act, 1986 also
permits authorized a~1ents to appear on behalf of the
complainants in order to 1ensure that they are not burdened with
the heavy professional f1ees of lawyers.
c 67. Similarly, the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 explicitly
provides that its rules apply to carriage performed by the State
or by legally constituted public bodies under Chapter 1, Section
2, Sub-section 1. Thus, it is clear that according to the Indian
Law, Ethiopian Airlines can be subjected to suit under the
D Carriage Act, 1972. It may be pertinent to mention that the
Carriage by Air Act, 19'72 (69 of 1972) is an Act to give effect
to the Convention for the unification of certain rules relating to
international carriage by air signed at Warsaw on the 12th day
of October, 1929 and to the said Convention as amended by
E the Hague Protocol on the 28th day of September, 1955 and
to make provision for applying the rules contained in the said
Convention in its original form and in the amended form (subject
to exceptions, adaptations and modification) to non-
international carriage by air and for matters connected
F therewith.
68. In effect, by signing onto the Warsaw Convention,
Ethiopia had expressly waived its Airlines' right to immunity in
cases such as that sub judice. Therefore, the Central
G Governments of both 'India and Ethiopia have waived that right
by passing the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and by signing onto
the Warsaw Convention. ; '

69. In accordance with the interpretation set forth above,
the Bombay High Cc1urt has noted that Section 86 is of only
H limited applicability and can be overcome in cases of even I
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 979
[DALVEER BHANDARI, J.]
-~
-+ implied waiver. For example, in The German Democratic A
Republic v. The Dynamic Industrial Undertaking Ltd., AIR
1972 Bombay 27, the Bombay High Court found that Section
86 does not supplant the relevant doctrine under International
Law. Rather, Section 86 "creates another exception" to
immunity (emphasis added), i~ addition to those exceptions B
j
recognized under International Law. Likewise, in Kenya Airways
v. Jinibai B. Kheshwala, AIR 1998 Bombay 287, the Bombay
High Court found that, while Kenya Airways was a state entity
prima facie entitled to immunity under Section 86, it had
nevertheless waived that immunity by, in its written statements, c
failing to raise a plea of sovereign immunity under Section 86
of the CPC. Therefore, in that case, the Bombay High Court
found that Kenya Airways was not entitled to sovereign immunity .
~
and could be subjected to suit in an Indian court.

70. Ethiopian Airlines is not entitled to sovereign immunity D
with respect to a commercial transaction is also consonant with
the holdings of otber countries' courts and with the growing
International Law principle of restrictive immunity. For instance,
in England, in Rahimtoola v. H.E.H. The Nizam of Hyderabad
and Others (1957) 3 All E.R. 441, Lord Denning found that E
"there was no reason why (a country] should grant to the
departments or agencies of foreign governments an immunity
which [the country does] not grant [its] own, provided always that
-:. the matter in dispute arises within the jurisdiction of [the
country's] courts and is properly cognizable by them." Lord F
Denning also held that "if the dispute concerns ... the
commercial transactions of a foreign government... and it arises
properly within the territorial jurisdiction of (a country's] courts,
there is no ground for granting immunity," finding implicitly that
it would not "offend the dignity of a foreign sovereign to have G
the merits of such a dispute canvassed in the domestic courts
\ of another country."
71. Likewise, in Trendtex Trading Corporation Ltd. v.
Central Bank of Nigeria (1977) 1 All E.R. 881, the Court held
H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 9 S.C.R.

A that the Central Bank of Nigeria was not entitled to plead
sovereign immunity because, according to International Law
Principle of restrictive immunity, a state-owned entity is not
entitled to immunity for acts of a commercial nature, jure
gestionis. The Court noted that "if a government department
B goes into the market places of the world and buys boots or
cement - as a commercial transaction - that government
department should be subjec:t to all the rules of the market
place." The Court also noted an "important practical
consideration." stating that foreign sovereign immunity, "in
c protecting sovereign bodies from the indignities and
disadvantages of that process, operates to deprive other
persons of the benefits and advantages of [the judicial] process
in relation to rights which they posses and which would
otherwise be susceptible to e:nforcement." As the court stated,
the principle of restrictive immunity is "manifestly better in
0
accord with practical good sense and with justice."

72. On careful analysis of the American, English and Indian
cases, it is abundantly clear that the ar-pellant Ethiopian Airlines
must be held accountable for the contractual and commercial
E activities and obligations that it undertakes in India.

73. It may be pertinent to mention that the Parliament has
recognized this fact while passing the Consumer Protection Act,
1986 and the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. Section 86 was itself,
F a modification and restriction of the principle of foreign
sovereign immunity and thus, by limiting Section 86's
applicability, the Parliament through these Acts, further
narrowed a party's ability to successfully plead foreign
sovereign immunity. In thei modern era, where there is close
G interconnection between different countries as far as trade,
commerce and business are concerned, the principle of )
sovereign immunity can no longer be absolute in the way that
it much E~arlier was. Countries who participate in trade,
commerce and business with different countries ought to be
subjected to normal rules of the market. if State owned entities
H
ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES v. GANESH NARAIN SABOO 981
[DAL.VEER BHANDARI, J.]
would be able to operate with impunity, the rule of law would A
be degraded and international trade, commerce and business
will come to a grinding halt. Therefore, we have no hesitation
in coming to the conclusion that the appellant. cannot claim
sovereign immunity. The preliminary objection raised by the
I appellant before the court is devoid of any merit and must be B
-+
rejected.

74. The controversy involved in this case is no longer res-
integra. This Court in Patel Roadways Limited (supra) clearly
observed that a proceeding before the Consumer Forum C
comes within the sweep of term "suit". Again this Court in
Economic Transport Organization (supra) reiterated the
principle stated in Patel Roadways Limited (supra). Both these
judgments have been specifically approved by the Constitution
Bench of this Court in Economic Transport Organization
(supra). The view which has been taken in E.l.C.M. Exports D
(supra) is clearly contrary to the view taken by the Constitution
Bench judgment in Economic Transport Organization (supra)
and the same cannot be sustained.

75. We are of the considered view that the impugned order E
passed by the National Commission is untenable so far it held
that the proceeding before the Consumer Forum does not come
within the sweep of term "suit" because it is contrary to the
judgment of the Constitution Bench of this court in Economic
Transport Organization (supra). The finding of the National F
Commission is accordingly set aside to that extent. However,
we agree with the findings of the National Commission so far
as it has remitted the matter to the State Commission for
adjudication. In the facts and circumstance of this case, we
direct the State Commissi.on to dispose of the case as G
expeditiously as possible.
\
76. This appeal is accordingly disposed of, leaving the
parties to bear their own costs.
N.J. Appeal disposed of. H