Carriage by Air Act 'Expressly Excludes' Provisions Of Limitation Act : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held the Rule 30 of the Second Schedule to Carriage by Air Act, 1972 expressly excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act,1963.The bench comprising Justices KM Joseph and PS Narasimha dismissed an appeal against Bombay High Court judgment which held that a suit filed by a proprietary firm against British Airways is barred by limitation. Rule 30Rule 30 of the Air Act reads as follows: (1) The right to damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped. (2) The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the Court seized of the case.BackgroundThe appeal arises out of a suit filed by proprietary concern engaged in the business of imports and export. It had sent a cargo containing fruits and vegetables from Mumbai to Canada via London by employing services of British Airways on 04.01.2010 and 30.06.2010. The first cargo could not be sent due to bad weather conditions in London and the other due to packaging and other issues. As both the cargo got destroyed, the proprietary concern raised a claim dated 20.07.2010 for ₹4,27,922/-. Acknowledging the receipt of the notice, the Airways sent a mail on 02.11.2010 offering to settle the matter at 50% of the claim amount. Later, the proprietary concern filed a suit on 15.09.2012 before the City Civil Court, Mumbai for recovery of the amount of ₹9,17,642.56/-, with interest. The Airways filed written statements stating inter alia that the suit is barred by limitation. The Trial Court held that the suit is not barred by limitation as the period prescribed in Rule 30 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 could be calculated from 28.10.2010, that is, the date when the Respondent had acknowledged a proposed settlement of the claim at 50% of the demand. For this purpose, Section 18 of the Limitation Act was relied on. Allowing the appeal, the Bombay High Court held that the suit is barred by limitation and dismissed the same. IssuesBefore the Apex Court, these two issues: (1) Does Limitation Act, 1963 apply to the period specified in Rule 30 of the Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972? (2) Whether the Air Act, 1972, particularly Rule 30 of the Second Schedule expressly excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963?The judgment examines applicability of the Limitation Act when the right itself is extinguished, as against a barring of remedy, as in the case of Section 3 of Limitation Act. Rule 30 (2) does not enable applicability of exclusion of periods Answering the first issue, the bench held as follows:"In the ultimate analysis, keeping in view the legislative history of the Convention and in view of the consistent interpretation of Article 29 of the Convention adopted in different jurisdictions, for the purpose of uniformity and also to subserve the purpose and object of the Convention, we are of the view that Rule 30 (2) does not enable applicability of exclusion of periods for the purpose of reckoning the period of two years."merely to fix the date on which the suit (or action) has 'begun' and the date on which limitation expiresOn the second issue, the bench noted that Sub-Rule (2) must therefore be interpreted harmoniously keeping in mind not only the content of Sub-Rule (1) but also the purpose and object of the Convention which is to bring about the unification of Rules relating to International Carriage by Air. "The intention behind Article 35(2) was merely to fix the date on which the suit (or action) has 'begun' and the date on which limitation expires, as per the laws of the country. The example given by the French Delegation makes this position clear as it was to accommodate provisions such as pre-trial conferences. As stated above, in India, such a position could possibly arise if the legislature envisages mandatory pre-trial mediation. It is in order to accommodate for this eventuality that the lawmakers left some room for the domestic law to operate. Having considered the matter in detail, we are of the opinion that Rule 30 of the Carriage by Air Act 1972, expressly excludes the applicability of the Limitation Act,1963.", the court observed while dismissing the appeal.Case detailsBhagwandas B. Ramchandani vs British Airways | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 645 | CA 4978 of 2022 | 29 July 2022 | Justices KM Joseph and PS NarasimhaCounsel : Senior Advocate Vinay Navare, assisted by Adv Pravartak Pathak, Adv Gwen Karthika, AOR Abha R. Sharma, for the Appellants and Adv Ritu Singh Mann for Respondent assisted by Adv Dheeraj K. Garg and AOR Rajan K. ChourasiaHeadnotesCarriage by Air Act, 1972 ; Rule 30 - Limitation Act, 1963 ; Section 29(2)- Rule 30 expressly excludes the Limitation Act as provided in Section 29 - Rule 30 (2) does not enable applicability of exclusion of periods for the...

Carriage by Air Act 'Expressly Excludes' Provisions Of Limitation Act : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Carriage by Air Act 'Expressly Excludes' Provisions Of Limitation Act : Supreme Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers