https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279867 Under the Carriage by Air Act framework, Rule 29 was treated as permitting proceedings before a forum with domestic jurisdiction, and the National Commission was held to have jurisdiction on the value of the claim. Delivery of cargo without bank verification, without notice to the consignee, and without following shipper instructions was treated as deficiency in service, with the carrier remaining liable despite reliance on its agent or alleged address defects. A contractual 120-day complaint clause could not override the statutory scheme; the two-year limitation under Rule 30 applied, and the complaint was found within time. The carrier was therefore held liable for improper delivery, with compensation, interest, and costs awarded. en-us Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:45:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279867 Under the Carriage by Air Act framework, Rule 29 was treated as permitting proceedings before a forum with domestic jurisdiction, and the National Commission was held to have jurisdiction on the value of the claim. Delivery of cargo without bank verification, without notice to the consignee, and without following shipper instructions was treated as deficiency in service, with the carrier remaining liable despite reliance on its agent or alleged address defects. A contractual 120-day complaint clause could not override the statutory scheme; the two-year limitation under Rule 30 applied, and the complaint was found within time. The carrier was therefore held liable for improper delivery, with compensation, interest, and costs awarded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 15 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=279867