AIR INDIA Vs. R M MEENAKSHI ACHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals, respectively arise out of Application No. 1886/90 in C.S. 560/78 and application No. 1885 / 90 in C.S. 559 / 78, both on the file of this Court. A common order dated 31-10-l990 was passed in those two applications and another application No, 1892/90 in C.S. 557/78 on the file of this Court. The above referred three suits have been filed by the respective legal representatives of the three victims in the air accident that occurred on 12-10-76 claiming damages for the loss suffered due to the said air accident. The above said three applications are for amendment of the respective plaints and the learned Trial Judge has allowed the respective amendments and, aggrieved by the said order allowing the amendments, one of the three defendants alone in C.S. 560/78 and C.S. 559 / 78, namely Air India, has preferred these two appeals. Originally the respective plaintiffs in those two suits based their claims under the Carriage by Air Act 1972. But, subsequently, the amendment sought for wanted to make one more grounds of attach namely on the basis of the negligence by the defendants, though no additional relief was asked for by way of additional damages or fresh relief. This additional ground of attack is said to be based on the report of the Court of enquiry appointed to inquire into the above said air accident. The said report dated 22-9-1978 was no doubt published on 26-12-1978 itself.

(2.) In the above circumstances, the learned Trial Judge has allowed the amendment sought for negativing the contention of the defendants that the amendment would amount to introduction of a new cause of action and that the proposed amendment would be hit by the law of limitation. The learned Judge also observed that, because the report of the Court of enquiry has been published in the newspapers on 26-12-78, it could not be possibly stated that the plaintiff's had knowledge or the report even on that date, that they themselves alleged that they come to know of the findings of the said report only later and that mere delay in seeking the amendment was not sufficient to reject the claim of the plaintiffs. The learned Judge also observed that in the suit C.S. 516 / 78 filed by the heirs of another victim of the same air crash, the findings of the Court of enquiry had been mentioned in the original plaint itself.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that the amendment should not have been allowed since the claim based on the above said negligence would be barred by the Law of Limitation and in support of his contention he relied on the decisions reported in LJ Leach and Company Ltd. v. Jardine Skinner and Co., AIR 1957 SC 357 : (1957 All LJ 794) : 1957 SCR 438 and Pirgonda Hongonda Patil v. Kaigonda Shigonda Patil, AIR 1957 SC 363 : 1957 SCR 595,