UNION OF INDIA Vs. STERLING GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Sterling General Insurance Co. Ltd. (respondent No. 1.) and the Hindustan Times Ltd. (respondent No. 2) filed the suit out of which this appeal arises against the appellant Union of India for recovery of Rs. 70,000.00. The suit was decreed by the trial Court by its Judgment and decree dated January 15, 1962 against which the Union of India have filed this appeal.

(2.) Respondent No. 2 owned two aircrafts which were insured with respondent No. 1 These aircrafts were burnt on May 8, 1958 while in the hangar at the Delhi Flying Club. Safdarjung Aerodrome, New Delhi, when a Vampire aircraft belonging to the Indian Air Force hit the ground at the side aerodrome and crashed into the hangar resulting in the fire to the two aircrafts belonging to respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 1 paid claims of Rs 60,000.00 for one of the aircraft and of Rs. 10,000.00 for the other aircraft to respondent No. 2 on May 21, 1958 in pursuance of the policies of insurance and became subrogated to all rights, titles and interests of respondent No. 2 in respect of the loss and damage caused to the two aircrafts belonging to respondent No. 2. It was alleged in the plaint that the accident was caused as a result of the gross negligence and dereliction of duty on the part of the authorities having control of the aircraft of the Indian Air Force which caused the accident and which was the result of uncalled for trespass committed in the premises where the two aircrafts belonging to respondent No. 2 were lying. The appellant, Union of India, was sought to be made liable for the aforesaid loss on the ground that the aircraft aurhorities having control of the aircraft of the Indian Air Force were employees of the Central Government under the Ministry of Defence. A notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on the appellant and on non-payment, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 70,000.00 on April 16, 1960, in the trial Court.

(3.) The appellant tiled their written statement raising various pleas denying the validity of the notice under sction 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, alleged gross negligence and derelication of duty and the absence of particulars in that behalf; the absence of justiciable cause of action and the maintainability of the suit against the appellant on the ground that the aircraft in question was on an official flight when it crashed and immunity on account of an Act of State and the non-liability of the appellant for any allegd tortious of their employees.