M.R.F. LIMITED Vs. SINGAPORE AIRLINES LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiffs who had filed the suit for recovery of money, have filed this Second Appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.10.2005 passed by the First Appellate Court in A.S. No. 110 of 2005 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2004 made in O.S. No. 4799 of 2000 on the file of the XI Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, was reversed allowing the First Appeal at the instance of the first defendant.

(2.) The first plaintiff is the owner of the cargo and the second plaintiff is the Insurance Company with whom the cargo was insured. The first defendant is the Air Carrier and the second defendant is the consolidator of the first defendant. The cargo belonging to the first plaintiff was entrusted to the first defendant, who issued the Master Airway Bill and undertook to carry the cargo. The second defendant, on arrival of the cargo, collected the freight charges from the plaintiffs and the first plaintiff, on payment, collected the cargo. After the customs examination, the first plaintiff found all the bags in the cargo in a damaged and wet condition thereby defeating the purpose for which the cargo was imported. On 02.01.1997, a notice of loss was sent to the first defendant holding them liable for the loss. An independent surveyor was also appointed to find the quantum the loss as the damage took place while in the custody of the first defendant. The first defendant as the carrier and the second defendant as the consolidator are jointly and severally liable to pay the loss to the plaintiffs. The consignment was insured with the second plaintiff. As per the terms and conditions of the Policy, the second plaintiff processed the claim of the first plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.2,67,433/- for which the first plaintiff also executed a letter of Subrogation and Special Power of Attorney in favour of the second plaintiff on the strength of which the plaintiffs together filed a complaint bearing O.P. No. 828 of 1998 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chennai South, on 18.9.1998 and the same was dismissed on 24.5.2000 with liberty to file a Civil Suit. Since the plaintiffs prosecuted the matter before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum in good faith, the plaintiffs have sought for exclusion of the period spent before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum under Section 14 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the suit filed is within time according to the plaintiffs.

(3.) The suit was contested by the first defendant on the ground that the suit is not filed within two years from 17.10.1996 as per Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which is a special enactment. It is further stated that there was no cause of action for the suit. The second defendant consolidator also had filed a written statement taking the same defence that the suit is barred by limitation.