UNION BEARING I LTD Vs. TATA PRESS LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises from order dated 5.10.1998 rendered by the learned Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ahmedabad City, dismissing complaint bearing No.116 of 1996.

(2.) Facts of the present case run into a narrow compass : The complainant No.1 company hired services of the opponents for printing and publishing advertisement of their business in the Ahmedabad Telephones Directory and Tata Yellow Pages for a period of 5 years 1987 to 1993 and paid Rs.1,25,000/- by way of consideration in advance to the opponents. As the opponents did not publish the advertisement, the complainants inter alia called upon the opponents to refund the amount as per communication dated 6.4.1994. They having not done so and services having not been rendered as per the contract between the parties, complainant No.1 along with complainant No.2, its Managing Director filed aforesaid complaint before the learned Forum for obtaining refund of Rs.1,25,000/- and compensation in the sum of Rs.3,00,000/- along with compensation on other heads and cost. Opponents resisted the complaint inter alia on the ground that it became impossible for them to perform the contract on account of concerned authority of the Telecommunication Department at Ahmedabad in not granting permission for publishing the directory in question resulting into filing of suit in Civil Court at Ahmedabad. The learned Forum has referred to Clause 10 of the contract between the parties which would read as under : "10. Force Majeure-The publisher shall not be liable for non-performance hereof it and to the extent caused by occurrences beyond its control, including but not limited to acts of God, decrees or retraints of Governments, strikes, or other labour disturbances, change of law, refusal on the part of the Government, Government Agencies, Bank or other Competent Authority to grant any necessary permit or in the event of any other supervening clause rendering performance of any of the obligations in accordance with the most liberal interpretation of the doctrine of frustration of contracts. "

(3.) Learned Forum also relied on Sec.56 of the Indian Contract Act according to which when a contract becomes impossible of performance by reason of some event which promissor could not prevent becomes void when the Act becomes impossible of being performed. The learned Forum, therefore, proceeded to dismiss the complaint.