Court : Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission SCDRC New Delhi
..... from opposite party-1 and the said opposite party being an independent legal entity, the opposite party-2 could not be made liable for the acts of omission or commission of opposite party-1; that the fact that the tickets did not bear the stamp of opposite party-1 was only an illegality and would not occasion the refusal by egypt air to confirm the tickets of the complainant for ..... shall be deemed to 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 criminal procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). ..... but so far as the preliminary objection of opposite party-2 regarding the maintainability of the present complaint before this commission, in view of section 27 and rule 28 of schedule-i to carriage by air act, 1972, is concerned, it would be pertinent to point out that the said act is of 1972 whereas the consumer protection act, 1986 is a subsequent legislation and as such the earlier legislation could not have envisaged the maintainability of a complaint for ..... in its reply/written version opposite party-2 had also taken a number of preliminary objections including the objection that in view of rule 30(1) of warsaw convention, schedule-i to carriage by air act, 1972, the contract of carriage regarding travel of complainant from cairo-lagos-cairo sector was with egypt air and not with opposite party-2; that the complainant .....
Tag this Judgment!