INDIAN AIRLINES Vs. ANGELIQUE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant has canvassed that wrong delivery of goods will fall within the ambit and scope of Clause 18 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 ("the Act", for short), thus, suit for recovery of Rs. 6,46,800/- filed by the respondent no. 1 against appellant was barred by time, having been filed after two years of loss of goods, in view of Rule 29 of the first Schedule and Rule 30 of the second Schedule to the Act.

(2.) By placing reliance on M/s. Vij Sales Corporation vs. Lufthansa Airlines, 1981 2 ILR(Del) 749, which was later on followed in Old Village Ind. Vs. British Airways, 1991 RLR 443, trial court, in the context of Rule 18 read with Rule 29 of first Schedule to the Act, has held that the said provisions would come into play only when the consignment is either lost, destroyed partly or wholly damaged in transit and not the wrong delivery of consignment. In case goods are not covered by the Rule 18, then the special limitation given in Rule 29 of first schedule to the Act would not govern the case and the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, that is, Articles 10 or 11 would be applicable. Trial court has held that the case in hand was with regard to the wrong delivery of goods and did not fall within the ambit and scope of loss of baggage, thus, action of appellant did not fall within the Rule 18, therefore, Rule 29 was not attracted and Article 11 of the Limitation Act, 1963, was applicable, which envisages period of three years for bringing a suit against the carrier for compensation for non-delivery, which period is to commence from the date when goods ought to have been delivered. Thus, the suit having been filed within three years, was within limitation.

(3.) Short point, which needs to be considered in this appeal is "Whether wrong delivery of the goods by appellant would amount to loss of goods, within the meaning of Rule 18 of the first schedule of the Act, thereby attracting the provisions of Rule 29 of the first Schedule of the Act".