2024 Lords Universal College of Law Intra-Moot Court Competition PDF

TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION DELORE NAVARA...

TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA-MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2024 BEFORE THE HON’BLE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION DELORE NAVARA Consumer Complaint No. of 2024 Complaint under section 34 of the Consumer Protection Act 2019 In the matter of: MELANIE FURTADO........................................................ Complainant v. SPIRIT AIRLINES................................................................. Defendant WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 TABLE OF CONTENT LIST OF ABBRIEVATIONS......................................................................................... 3 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES....................................................................................... 4-5 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION............................................................................. 6 STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................................7-8 ISSUES RAISED............................................................................................................ 9 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS................................................................................10-11 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.....................................................................................12-23 I. WHETHER SPIRIT AIRLINES IS LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019?12-14 II. WHETHER THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY SPIRIT AIRLINES (Rs.3,000 AND A DISCOUNT VOUCHER) IS ADEQUATE AND FAIR?........................................................................................ 15-18 III. WHETHER MELANIE IS ENTITLED TO FURTHER COMPENSATION FOR THE MISSING DESIGNER CLOTHES AND DAMAGE TO HER SUITCASE?..................................................... 18-21 IV. WHETHER SPIRIT AIRLINES TERMS AND CONDITIONS LIMITING LIABILITY FOR BAGGAGE ARE FAIR AND ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS?.21-23 PRAYERS...................................................................................................................... 24 2 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviation Full Form Ans. Another Art. Article CPA, 2019 The Consumer protection Act, 2019 CPJ Consumer Protection Judgement DCDRC The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission DCDRF District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum F.A. First Appeal Hon’ble Honourable Ltd. Limited NCDRC The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Ors. Others SC Supreme Court SCC Supreme Court Cases Ors Others § section SCDRC State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission U/§ Under Section v. Versus 3 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES I. CASES CITED 1. Air India vs. Rajeev Kumar 2. Aruna Narayanan Vs. The Air India Ltd. (2009) 3. Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Ltd. (1996) 4 SCC 704 4. Capt. Sandeep Sharma vs. M/s Spicejet Ltd. 5. Dr. Viral Shah vs. Air India Ltd. 6. Gargi Parsai Vs. K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines (2007) 7. Helen Wallia Vs. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (2002) 8. Interglobe Aviation Limited v. Manish Nagpal 9. Lufthansa German Airlines V. Sh. Prateek Chaddha 10. Sharad Godika Vs. Indian Airlines (2010) 11. Shiv Garg vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors. (2012) 12. SpiceJet Ltd. vs. Ranaveer Sinha (2014) II. BOOKS REFERRED: 1. Consumer Protection Act, 2019 2. Indian Contract Act, 1872, 3. Carriage Air Act, 1972 III. ARTICLE AND ONLINE SOURCES: 1.casemine.com 2.indiankanoon.org 3.indiacode.nic.in 4 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 IV. ACT: 1. The Carriage by Air Act, 1972 2. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019 3. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 5 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION The appellant has invoked its jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court U/§ 34 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. This Hon’ble Court has the jurisdiction to entertain complaints u/§ 34 of the Act. § 34 : Jurisdiction of District Commission (1) Subject to the other provisions of this Act, the District Commission shall have jurisdiction to entertain complaints where the value of the goods or services paid as consideration does not exceed one crore rupees: Provided that where the Central Government deems it necessary so to do, it may prescribe such other value, as it deems fit. (2) A complaint shall be instituted in a District Commission within the local limits of whose jurisdiction,— (a) the opposite party or each of the opposite parties, where there are more than one, at the time of the institution of the complaint, ordinarily resides or carries on business or has a branch office or personally works for gain; or (c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises; or (d) the complainant resides or personally works for gain. (3) The District Commission shall ordinarily function in the district headquarters and may perform its functions at such other place in the district, as the State Government may, in consultation with the State Commission, notify in the Official Gazette from time. Therefore the Defendant humbly challenges the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court and thereby submits this present memorandum which states facts, contentions and arguments presented in this case. 6 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. Melanie Furtado, a resident of Delore, planned to travel to Mavipatnam to attend her relative's wedding. She booked a flight ticket with Spirit Airlines, a prominent airline in Navara, for a flight scheduled on 17th June 2024. 2. Upon arrival in Mavipatnam, Melanie discovered that her checked-in baggage was missing. The baggage contained valuable items, including gifts and clothes intended for the wedding. Melanie promptly raised a claim with Spirit Airlines, which assured her that the baggage would be delivered as soon as it was located. However, the baggage was not delivered on the same day, causing significant inconvenience and distress. 3. Spirit Airlines' terms and conditions stipulate that liability for lost, delayed, or damaged baggage is limited to Rs.10,000 per passenger unless a higher value is declared in advance, with additional charges paid for. 4. The airline also excludes liability for minor damage resulting from normal wear and tear and for valuable items packed in checked baggage. These terms were accepted by Melanie when she booked her ticket, and she did not pay extra for additional baggage insurance. 5. After a delay of 10 days, Spirit Airlines delivered Melanie's baggage to her residence in Delore. Upon receipt, she found that parts of the suitcase were chipped and damaged, and her designer clothes worth Rs.25,000 were missing. Some items inside the suitcase, including gifts, were also damaged. 6. As a goodwill gesture, Spirit Airlines compensated Melanie with Rs.3,000 and provided a voucher for a discount on her next flight booking. However, Melanie found this compensation inadequate, considering the value of the lost items, the damage to her suitcase, and the mental distress she endured. 7. Dissatisfied with the airline’s response, Melanie filed a complaint with the District 7 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC), alleging deficiency in service and seeking further compensation for the inconvenience, loss, and damage to her property. 8. Spirit Airlines contends that their compensation was consistent with their terms and conditions, which Melanie accepted at the time of booking, and claims they have fulfilled their obligations. 8 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 ISSUES RAISED ISSUE I WHETHER SPIRIT AIRLINES IS LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019? ISSUE II WHETHER THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY SPIRIT AIRLINES (Rs.3,000 AND A DISCOUNT VOUCHER) IS ADEQUATE AND FAIR ? ISSUE III WHETHER MELANIE IS ENTITLED TO FURTHER COMPENSATION FOR THE MISSING DESIGNER CLOTHES AND DAMAGE TO HER SUITCASE? ISSUE IV WHETHER SPIRIT AIRLINES TERMS AND CONDITIONS LIMITING LIABILITY FOR BAGGAGE ARE FAIR AND ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS? 9 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ISSUE I. WHETHER SPIRIT AIRLINES IS LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019? The Defendant, Spirit Airlines, is not liable for deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The complainant, Melanie Furtado, agreed to the airline's terms and conditions when booking her ticket, which limited the airline's liability for lost, delayed, or damaged baggage to Rs. 10,000 unless a higher value was declared with additional charges. Since Melanie did not declare a higher value or opt for extra coverage, she cannot seek compensation beyond this limit. Spirit Airlines delivered the baggage 10 days later, but the delay was not unreasonable under the circumstances. The airline offered Rs. 3,000 and a discount voucher as goodwill compensation, which aligns with its standard policy. As Spirit Airlines adhered to its policies and acted in good faith, there was no deficiency in service, and they are not liable for Melanie's claims. ISSUE II. WHETHER THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY SPIRIT AIRLINES (Rs.3,000 AND A DISCOUNT VOUCHER) IS ADEQUATE AND FAIR? The compensation of Rs.3,000 and a discount voucher provided by the Defendant, Spirit Airlines, is both fair and adequate, as it aligns with the terms and conditions accepted by the Complainant at the time of booking. These terms, as per Section 9 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, limit the Defendant's liability for delayed or damaged baggage unless the Complainant declared a higher value in advance, which she failed to do. Furthermore, the Defendant is not liable for valuables or minor damage as per Section 4 of the Act. The Defendant acted in good faith by promptly delivering the baggage and providing reasonable compensation, in line with legal obligations. Additionally, as upheld in Indigo Airlines & Anr. v. Aastha Pansari, the airline's limited liability is enforceable when agreed upon by the passenger, and in this case, the compensation provided adequately addressed the inconvenience without breaching contractual or statutory provisions. 10 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 ISSUE III. WHETHER MELANIE IS ENTITLED TO FURTHER COMPENSATION FOR THE MISSING DESIGNER CLOTHES AND DAMAGE TO HER SUITCASE? In the case of Melanie Furtado vs. Spirit Airlines, Melanie's complaint centred on delayed and damaged baggage for which she sought further compensation beyond the Rs.3,000 and discount vouchers already offered by the airline. Spirit Airlines adhered to its contractual terms and conditions, which include a liability cap of Rs.10,000 per passenger for lost or damaged baggage unless a higher value was declared and additional charges were paid. Melanie did not declare a higher value for her baggage nor did she purchase additional insurance. According to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, the airline’s liability is limited to a specific amount unless extra declarations are made. The airline's actions were consistent with these legal limits and did not exhibit negligence or unfair practices. Therefore, Spirit Airlines has fulfilled its contractual and statutory obligations, and Melanie’s request for additional compensation is unsupported by the terms of the contract and legal provisions. ISSUE IV. WHETHER SPIRIT AIRLINES TERMS AND CONDITIONS LIMITING LIABILITY FOR BAGGAGE ARE FAIR AND ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS? Spirit Airlines' terms and conditions limiting baggage liability are fair and enforceable due to their clarity and transparency, alignment with industry norms and risk management practices, consumer acknowledgment and acceptance, reasonableness and proportionality, and legal precedents and statutory support. The terms were explicitly communicated to Melanie at the time of booking, clearly stated, and accepted by her, making them binding. Limitation of liability is a well-established practice in the airline industry, necessary for managing operational risks and maintaining affordability, supported by judicial precedents and statutory provisions under the Carriage Act and Contract Act. Additionally, Melanie had the opportunity to opt for additional baggage insurance, which she declined. Given these factors, Spirit Airlines' terms and conditions concerning baggage liability are legally valid, equitable, and consistent with both legal and industry standards, and therefore should be upheld, denying Melanie's claims for further compensation. 11 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED ISSUE I. WHETHER SPIRIT AIRLINES IS LIABLE FOR DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019? It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Commission that the Defendant, Spirit Airlines is not liable for deficiency of service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Melanie Furtado, the complainant, accepted the terms and conditions of Spirit Airlines when booking her flight ticket which explicitly outlined the airline’s liability for lost, delayed, or damaged baggage. However, Section 2(11) defines of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 are staying as follows: “deficiency" means any fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law for the time being in force or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise in relation to any service.” Further under Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, “consumer rights” are comprehensively defined to ensure the protection and welfare of consumers as words mentioned follows: (ii)The right of a consumer to be protected against unfair trade practices by being aware of the quality, quantity, potency, purity, standard and price of goods, products or services. By consenting to the terms and conditions, Melanie Furtado entered into a binding contractual agreement with Spirit Airlines, which expressly limits the airline's liability for lost, delayed, or damaged baggage to Rs.10,000 per passenger, unless a higher value is declared with the payment of additional charges. As Melanie neither declared a higher valuation nor opted for additional coverage, she is contractually precluded from seeking compensation exceeding the prescribed limit of Rs.10,000. 1.1 LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY FOR BAGGAGE Spirit Airlines' terms and conditions explicitly state that the airline is not liable for minor damage to baggage resulting from normal wear and tear, nor for valuable items such as electronics contained in checked baggage. In this instance, Melanie's suitcase included designer clothing valued at approximately Rs.25,000, which is classified as a valuable item under the airline's liability policy. As per the airline's policy, which is enforceable under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, states “When a contract has been broken, if a 12 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 sum is named in the contract as the amount to be paid in case of such breach, or if the contract contains any other stipulation by way of penalty, the party complaining of the breach is entitled, whether or not actual damage or loss is proved to have been caused thereby, to receive from the party who has broken the contract reasonable compensation not exceeding the amount so named or, as the case may be, the penalty stipulated for.” Hence, Spirit Airlines is not liable for the loss of these items. By incorporating these limitations into its contract of carriage and clearly communicating them to passengers, Spirit Airlines has acted within the legal framework and has not committed any deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019.. 1.2 FAIR RESPONSE AND GOODWILL COMPENSATION Spirit Airlines delivered Melanie's baggage approximately 10 days after the flight. While this may have caused inconvenience, it is not unreasonable given the circumstances. The airline's actions demonstrate a commitment to rectifying the situation, which aligns with the reasonable expectations of service under the Consumer Protection Act 1. The defendant reiterates that the compensation of Rs.3,000 along with a discount voucher offered to the Complainant is in line with its standard policy. This compensation is provided as a gesture of goodwill and exceeds the standard liability as outlined in the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Complainant. 1.3 STATUTORY REPORTING DEADLINE Spirit Airlines' requirement for passengers to report lost or delayed baggage within 21 days is grounded in the statutory framework established by the Montreal Convention and incorporated into domestic law through the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. It is pertinent to note that In light of these statutory provisions, it is evident that Spirit Airlines has acted in compliance with the law by requiring passengers to report lost or delayed baggage within 21 days, that is the Spirit Airlines delivered Melanie Furtado's delayed baggage within approximately 10 days of the report being made.. This requirement is a necessary measure to facilitate the efficient resolution of baggage claims. In the case of Lufthansa German Airlines V. Sh. Prateek Chaddha2 On 17 May 2011, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission addressed a complaint regarding lost baggage. Prateek Chaddha filed a Property Irregularity Report after discovering his baggage 1 The consumer Protection Act, 2019 2 Lufthansa German Airlines V. Sh. Prateek Chaddha FA/248/2010 13 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 was missing upon arrival at New Delhi Airport. Despite the eventual delivery of the baggage the next day, Chaddha claimed significant emotional distress and sought compensation for the lost items valued at Rs. 46,050. Lufthansa Airlines argued that they had taken all reasonable measures to prevent damage and loss, and that the complainant failed to provide substantial evidence for the value of the lost items. The court found that the complainant’s reliance on hearsay and lack of concrete evidence weakened his case. Additionally, the court noted that Lufthansa had adhered to its obligations under the Consumer Protection Act by taking necessary precautions and delivering the baggage promptly. The court concluded that there was no deficiency in service by Lufthansa, as the airline had fulfilled its duty of care and the complainant’s claims were unsupported by adequate proof. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and the appeal was upheld in favor of Lufthansa. In Air India vs. Rajeev Kumar3, Complaint No. 123/2021, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum on March 15, 2023 ruled in favour of Air India regarding delayed baggage claims. The complainant alleged significant inconvenience due to delayed checked baggage from Mumbai to Kolkata. Air India argued it followed procedures and the delay was due to operational reasons beyond its control. The Forum found that while there was a delay, the baggage was returned within a reasonable timeframe, and Air India communicated effectively with the passenger. The court ruled the delay did not amount to deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, as Air India acted within its rights and responsibilities. The judgment underscored that airlines are not liable for delays if they make reasonable efforts to locate and return delayed baggage promptly. Therefore, any claims made by the complainant, Melanie Furtado, regarding lost baggage that were not reported within this statutory timeframe should be deemed inadmissible under the relevant legal framework, thereby absolving Spirit Airlines of liability for the alleged deficiency in service 3 Air India vs. Rajeev Kumar (2023) ,Complaint No. 123/2021, DCDRF 14 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 ISSUE II. WHETHER THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED BY SPIRIT AIRLINES (Rs.3,000 AND A DISCOUNT VOUCHER) IS ADEQUATE AND FAIR? This issue revolves around whether the compensation of Rs.3,000 and the discount voucher provided by the Defendant, Spirit Airlines, is adequate and fair. The Complainant alleges that this compensation is insufficient given the inconvenience caused and the damage to her property. However, it is essential to consider that the Defendant's actions were in line with the contractual terms, statutory provisions under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, and prevailing principles under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Defendant fulfilled its obligations, both legally and contractually, and thus the compensation provided should be deemed reasonable and fair. 2.1 THE COMPENSATION PROVIDED IS ADEQUATE AS PER CONTRACTUAL TERMS. The Defendant provided compensation in strict adherence to the terms and conditions agreed upon by the Complainant. The contractual terms clearly limited liability to Rs.10,000 per passenger unless a higher value was declared, which the Complainant failed to do. The goodwill compensation of Rs.3,000 and the additional discount voucher was a reasonable attempt to mitigate any inconvenience caused by the delay. Under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the Complainant’s acceptance of the terms during the booking forms a valid contract. By accepting the terms, the Complainant is bound by the limitations set forth therein, and Spirit Airlines acted within its legal rights.4 In Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Limited (1996)5, the Supreme Court of India upheld the enforceability of contractual limitations on liability. The Court ruled that the liability for loss or damage was confined to the amount stipulated in the contract, emphasizing that such terms are binding unless proven unfair or challenged under exceptional circumstances.5 4 The Indian Contract Act. 1872, § 10. 5 Bharathi Knitting Co. v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Div. of Airfreight Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 704. 15 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 The absence of a higher declared value by the Complainant means the Defendant's actions were proportionate and considerate. The additional compensation and voucher provided were beyond contractual obligations, demonstrating good faith. 2.2COMPLIANCE WITH THE CARRIAGE BY AIR ACT, 1972. The Defendant’s liability is capped under Rule 22 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which governs compensation for delayed baggage. Since the Complainant did not declare a higher value for her baggage, the Defendant was only liable for compensation up to the statutory limit. The Rs.3,000 provided was in compliance with this legal framework, making any further compensation unwarranted. Rule 22 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 stipulates: "The liability of the carrier in respect of loss of baggage shall be limited to such amount as is specified in the conditions of carriage unless the passenger has declared a higher value”.6 In Interglobe Aviation Limited v. Manish Nagpal7 (Revision Petition No. 2601 of 2016), the NCDRC upheld the limitation of compensation as per the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The Commission overturned the District Forum’s order, emphasizing that the statutory cap of Rs.3,000 for lost luggage was applicable, thus reinforcing that compensation beyond this limit was not warranted. The Defendant's compliance with statutory obligations under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, reinforces that the compensation was calculated fairly and within the bounds of the law. This legal cap on liability ensures that airlines are not subjected to arbitrary claims beyond what passengers agree upon. 2.3NO DEFICIENCY IN SERVICE UNDER THE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 2019 The Defendant’s actions do not amount to deficiency in service under Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Complainant's baggage was located and delivered within 10 days, and goodwill compensation was provided in addition to the timely return of 6 Carriage by Air Act, 1972, Rule 22. 7 Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. Manish Nagpal, Revision Petition No. 2601 of 2016. 16 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 the baggage. The delay, while unfortunate, does not constitute a deficiency, especially since the airline’s liability was limited as per the terms accepted by the Complainant. Section 2(11) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines deficiency as: "A fault, imperfection, shortcoming or inadequacy in the quality, nature and manner of performance which is required to be maintained by or under any law or has been undertaken to be performed by a person in pursuance of a contract or otherwise."8 The delivery of the baggage within 10 days, despite uncontrollable delays, and the compensation offered show that the Defendant acted in good faith. The airline's reasonable and proportionate response undercuts any claim of deficiency. 2.4THE DEFENDANT’S LIMITATION OF LIABILITY IS FAIR AND ENFORCEABLE. The limitation of liability in the Defendant’s terms and conditions is both fair and legally enforceable under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The terms were clear, and the Complainant had ample opportunity to review them before making her booking. Additionally, such limitation clauses are standard practice in the aviation industry, ensuring predictability and fairness for both passengers and airlines. - Legal Basis: Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states: "The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law; is fraudulent; involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or is immoral."9 - Judicial Precedent: The judgment in Bharathi Knitting Company v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Division of Airfreight Limited (1996) and Interglobe Aviation Limited v. Manish Nagpal (2016)10 both reaffirm that liability for deficiency in service must adhere to contractual limitations. These cases highlight the binding nature of such terms unless exceptional circumstances warrant otherwise.10 8 Consumer Protection Act, 2019, § 2(11). 9 Indian Contract Act, 1872, § 23. 10 Bharathi Knitting Co. v. DHL Worldwide Express Courier Div. of Airfreight Ltd., (1996) 4 SCC 704; Interglobe Aviation Ltd. v. Manish Nagpal, Revision Petition No. 2601 of 2016. 17 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 - Strengthening Argument: Limitation of liability clauses are a necessary safeguard for airlines to manage risk and provide affordable services. The Complainant's acceptance of these terms validates the fairness of the limitation, and enforcing such terms is essential for the airline industry’s sustainability. In Conclusion, The Defendant has adhered to its contractual and legal obligations in providing compensation for the delayed baggage. The Rs.3,000 and the discount voucher offered by Spirit Airlines represent a fair and reasonable remedy, given the contractual limits and statutory caps on liability. The Defendant's actions demonstrate good faith and compliance with both the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, and the Consumer Protection Act, 2019. The Complainant's claim for further compensation lacks merit as the Defendant has fulfilled its obligations under the governing laws and the agreed-upon terms. Therefore, the compensation provided by Spirit Airlines should be considered adequate and just. ISSUE III. WHETHER MELANIE IS ENTITLED TO FURTHER COMPENSATION FOR THE MISSING DESIGNER CLOTHES AND DAMAGE TO HER SUITCASE? Spirit Airlines does not owe any more money to the complainant Melanie Furtado apart from the compensation already paid out. The airline has fully followed the terms executed in the agreement that were well agreed upon by the complainant at the time of making the bookings. Spirit Airlines has a reasonably compensated amount of Rs.3,000 along with discount coupons in good faith as per their terms and conditions. In the case of the complainant, Melanie Furtado purchased a ticket from Spirit Airlines which constituted acceptance of Spirit Airlines’ offer to provide air travel alongside the Spirit Airlines’ terms and conditions. These conditions were presented to her while making a reservation, and she accepted them in whole. According to the terms and conditions of Spirit Airlines: -Liability for lost, delayed or damaged baggage is a maximum of up to 10,000 rupees per passenger unless a higher value is declared in advance and additional charges are paid for. 18 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 - As per the airline's policy, the airline is not liable for any valuable items, including electronics that are packed in checked baggage, for minor damages resulting from normal wear and tear. However, the complainant did not declare additional value for her baggage nor did she make additional payments for the baggage insurance and therefore accepted the limited liability cap. In light of this contractual agreement, Spirit Airlines has already fulfilled its obligations by offering compensation within the limits of its policy. As per the rules laid down by the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, section 4 limits the liabilities which are prescribed by the International Conventions including Montreal Convention, into the legal framework of India. Article 22(2) of Montreal Convention states that an air carrier shall only be liable for destruction, loss, damage or delay of checked baggage to the equivalent amount of 1288 special drawing rights unless the passenger has checked-in such baggage on declaration of higher than this amount and by paying an additional charge.11 On the part of the complainant, no outside excessive misconduct or malice has been demonstrated either on behalf of the Spirit Airlines. Section 2(9) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 defines "unfair contract." Spirit Airlines were not unfair or one-sided as they have mentioned their terms and conditions, and Melanie accepted them while booking the ticket and had the option to declare a higher value for her baggage but she didn’t. As per the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 Rule 22 of Schedule II limits the liability of airlines for lost or damaged baggage. The airline compensation offer was in line with these statutory limits. Also Rule 20 & 21 deal with liability in case of delays, loss, or damage. Spirit Airlines acted within the framework of these rules, especially since they provided compensation and returned the baggage, albeit delayed. The airline has previously paid the complainant the amount of Rs.3,000 as a sign of goodwill. Thus the compensation offered of Rs.3,000 and a discount voucher which was within the statutory limits and terms of the contract. Helen Wallia Vs. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (2002)12 NCDRC held that, The Carriage by Air Act, 1972, and airline policies limit liability for lost baggage at a specific amount per kilogram. Claims exceeding this limit require evidence of the airline's intent to cause harm or reckless behaviour. The complaint was dismissed due to the airline's liability being capped by statutory limits, and no additional evidence of intentional wrongdoing was presented. 11 Montreal Convention, 1999 12 Helen Wallia v. Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. (2002), NCDRC 19 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 Gargi Parsai Vs. K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines (2007)13 The State Commission upheld the airline's limited liability offer of US $360, stating that the complainant had not proven willful misconduct by the airline. The Commission found that since the complainant did not declare the value of the baggage contents, the airline's liability was capped as per their terms. The State Commission’s order was confirmed by the higher court. The airline was not held liable for more than the compensation offered, and the complainant's appeal was dismissed. 14 Mrs. Aruna Narayanan Vs. The Air India Ltd. (2009) , In the judgment, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the District Forum’s decision. The complainant Mrs. Aruna Narayanan had sought compensation for a lost suitcase that was eventually recovered. She claimed significant damages for loss of professional reputation and mental agony, which the court rejected. The court found no willful misconduct or negligence from the airline beyond the delay in returning the luggage. As per the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, her claim was limited to USD 250, which the court deemed fair compensation. Similarly for Melanie Furtado vs. Spirit Airlines, this judgment supports the argument that compensation should be limited under established international rules like the Montreal Convention or equivalent laws, with no additional compensation for emotional distress or professional harm. Shiv Garg vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors. (2012)15 The State Commission upheld the District Forum's order and dismissed the revision petition. The court found no infirmity in the decisions of the lower forums regarding the insurance coverage limits and the handling of valuables. The petitioner’s contention that the airline should have prevented valuables from being checked was not accepted, as baggage screening by airlines is for security, not for determining the contents of valuables. The order directed the airline to pay compensation for the loss of the passport and checked-in baggage as per the insurance terms. US$ 250 for the passport and US$ 1,000 for the checked-in baggage. No additional compensation was awarded for the diamond necklace or foreign currency as it is not covered under insurance. The petition was dismissed with no additional costs. Mr. Sharad Godika v. Indian Airlines (2010), The District Consumer Forum award was in accordance with the liability limits set by the Warsaw Convention and Rule 22(2) of the Carriage by Air Act16. Since Mr. Godika did not declare the value of his baggage or pay the additional charge, the compensation was correctly limited to 20 US dollars per kg. There was no evidence of willful misconduct by the airline. The appeal for enhanced compensation was 13 Gargi Parsai Vs. K.L.M. Royal Dutch Airlines (2007), NCDRC 14 Mrs. Aruna Narayanan Vs. The Air India Ltd. (2009), Tamil Nadu, SCDRC Chennai 15 Shiv Garg vs. Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors. (2012), NCDRC 20 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 dismissed as the compensation awarded by the DCF was deemed appropriate based on the established legal framework. In light of the above arguments, it is respectfully submitted that Spirit Airlines has acted in accordance with the contractual terms and applicable laws. The airline has already compensated Ms. Furtado within the scope of its liability, and there is no legal basis for further compensation. Spirit Airlines fulfilled its obligations by delivering the baggage and compensating the complainant. Therefore, the claim for additional compensation for missing designer clothes and suitcase damage should be dismissed as Spirit Airlines has not acted negligently or breached any duty towards the complainant. ISSUE IV. WHETHER SPIRIT AIRLINES TERMS AND CONDITIONS LIMITING LIABILITY FOR BAGGAGE ARE FAIR AND ENFORCEABLE UNDER CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS? Spirit Airlines' terms and conditions limiting liability for baggage are fair and enforceable under consumer protection laws. The terms were clearly stated and accepted by Melanie at the time of booking, making them binding. Limitation of liability is a common and necessary practice in the airline industry to manage risks and maintain affordable fares. Melanie had the opportunity to opt for additional baggage insurance, which she declined. 4.1 CLARITY AND TRANSPARENCY IN TERMS Spirit Airlines’ terms and conditions were explicitly communicated to Melanie at the time of booking. The terms concerning baggage liability were not hidden in fine print but were presented in a clear and accessible manner. This transparency ensures that the terms are enforceable as they meet the standard requirements for contract formation under Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872, which mandates that a contract must be entered into with free consent and with a clear understanding of its terms. 4.2 INDUSTRY NORMS AND RISK MANAGEMENT The limitation of liability for baggage is a well-established practice within the airline industry. This practice is crucial for managing operational risks and maintaining the affordability of air travel. Courts have consistently recognized that such limitations are necessary and reasonable, given the high operational costs and risk management needs of 21 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 airlines. This is reflected in SpiceJet Ltd. vs. Ranaveer Sinha (2014)17 and Capt. Sandeep 18 Sharma vs. M/s Spicejet Ltd. , where the courts upheld similar liability limitations, underscoring that these practices are aligned with industry standards. 4.3 CONSUMER ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND ACCEPTANCE By agreeing to the terms and conditions at the time of booking, Melanie demonstrated acceptance of the limitation of liability. This acceptance is a critical factor in enforcing these terms. The principles of contract law, particularly under Section 10 of the Contract Act, 1872, affirm that a contract, including its terms and conditions, is enforceable if agreed upon by both parties. Melanie’s acknowledgment of these terms thus validates their enforceability. 4.4 REASONABLENESS AND PROPORTIONALITY The limitation of liability is designed to be reasonable and proportional to the risks associated with air travel. The terms are not arbitrary but reflect a balance between consumer protection and operational feasibility. This proportionality is evident in case law, including Dr. Viral Shah vs. Air India Ltd19, where the court found that delays caused by security reasons were beyond the airline's control and within the bounds of reasonable risk management. Such judgments affirm that the limitation of liability is both fair and consistent with industry practices. 4.5 LEGAL PRECEDENTS AND STATUTORY SUPPORT The Carriage Act, 2002, under Section 108, provides statutory support for limiting liability concerning cargo and baggage. This statutory provision, coupled with judicial precedents from cases such as SpiceJet Ltd. vs. Ranaveer Sinha (2014), illustrates that the limitation of liability aligns with legal standards and industry practices. Courts have consistently upheld these limitations, recognizing the necessity for airlines to manage risk and keep fares affordable while maintaining consumer protection. 17 SpiceJet Ltd. vs. Ranaveer Sinha (2014), SCDRC, Kolkata 18 Capt. Sandeep Sharma vs. M/s Spicejet Ltd. SCDRC, Hyderabad 19 Dr. Viral Shah vs. Air India Ltd. SCDRC, Chandigarh 22 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 In conclusion, Spirit Airlines’ terms and conditions concerning baggage liability are both fair and enforceable. The clarity and transparency of these terms, their alignment with industry norms, consumer acceptance, and judicial precedents all support the argument that these limitations are legally valid and equitable. The statutory framework under the Carriage Act and Contract Act further reinforces the enforceability of these terms, ensuring that they are consistent with both legal and industry standards. Furthermore, courts have consistently upheld similar liability limitations in consumer contracts, recognizing their fairness and enforceability. Therefore, Spirit Airlines' terms and conditions should be upheld, and Melanie's claims for further compensation should be denied. 23 Memorial for Defendant TC-03 LORDS UNIVERSAL COLLEGE OF LAW INTRA MOOT 2024 PRAYER WHEREFORE, in the light of the facts stated, arguments advanced and authorities cited, it is most humbly prayed and implored before the Hon’ble Court of Navara, that it may be graciously pleased to adjudge and declare that: I. Spirit airlines is not liable for deficiency in service under the Consumer Protection Act, 2019; II. The compensation provided by spirit airlines (Rs.3,000 and a discount voucher) is adequate and fair; III. Melanie is not entitled to further compensation for the missing designer clothes and damage to her suitcase; IV. Spirit airlines' terms and conditions limiting liability for baggage are fair and enforceable under consumer protection laws; AND/OR Pass any other Order, Direction, or Relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the interests of justice, equity, and good conscience. For this act of Kindness, the Defendant, as in duty bound, shall humbly pray. Place: Dated: 20th September 2024 S/d- Counsel for the Defendant. 24