Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.31 seconds)
M/S York Knitwears Ltd. & Anr vs M/S Lufthansa German Airlines & Ors. on 4 May, 2007 cites

Marine Container Services South Pvt. ... vs Go Go Garments on 23 January, 1998

In this connection, it is worthwhile to go through judgment of the Apex Court in (1998) 3 SCC 247 Marine Container Services South Pvt Ltd., vs Go Go Garments wherein it has held that we are not a little surprised to read that the Contract Act does not apply to complaints filed under the Consumer Protection Act. The Contract Act applies to all the litigants before the Commission under the Consumer Protection Act. Whether in proceedings before the Commission or otherwise, an agent is entitled to invoke the provisions of section 230 of the Contract Act and if the facts found support him, his defence based thereon cannot be brushed away. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and also the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, the Agent namely Sun Rise is not liable for the delayed delivery of the goods at the destination by the Lufthansa. The responsibility of Sun Rise ceases when it had got the custom clearance for the booked goods and arranged the delivery of the goods to Lufthansa. In fact, Sun Rise had taken pains to remind the Lufthansa to ensure prompt delivery of the goods. Hence, the agent cannot be held liable for delayed delivery.
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 168 - Full Document
1