GULF MEDICAL SUPPLIES LIMITED Vs. ETHIOPIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party-Ethiopian Airlines has raised an important objection to the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that Ethiopian Airlines is owned by Government of Ethiopia, and that there is no permission of the Central Government. Under section 86 (1) C. P. C. , the consent of Government of India is a must and that the same is absent here and in absence of such permission, the proceedings stand vitiated and non-est. This objection requires serious consideration in our view because all other facts do not appear to be very much in controversy. The other question regarding jurisdiction, liability of the common carrier are settled by various cases.

(2.) THE few facts are that the complainant No. 1 entrusted 40 cartons of medicines to the opposite party with destination Dar-Es-Salaam international airport on or about 26-4-94. Out of these 34 cartons were delivered, there was short delivery of 6 cartons valued at Rs. 3,65,777/ -. The short delivery of 6 cartons has been confirmed in the delivery note dated 31-5-94 of Transit Ltd. , Dar-Es-Salaam Airport Handling Co. Ltd. The letter to this effect is dated 9-9-94. The complainant No. 1 subrogated the claim in favour of complainant No. 2-New India Assurance Co. The complainants have claimed that amount plus cost with interest in all Rs. 5,27,457/ -.

(3.) THE opposite party in their affidavit by the Manager-original Director of the Ethiopian Airlines has stated that the opposite party was entrusted with the work of transportation of 40 cartons and that there was short delivery of 6 cartons. However, it is stated that the opposite party is wholly owned government undertaking of the Government of Ethiopia which is a foreign State and hence in absence of permission of the Central Government, the claim is not maintainable. We believe that this question has been extensively dealt with in the judgment of the Delhi High Court reported in 24 (1983) Delhi Law Times I in the case of (Deepak Wadhwa v. Aeroflot ). The implication of section 86 (I) of C. P. C. has been extensively dealt with in the said judgment and we believe that the relevant paragraph 10 deserves to be reproduced for understanding substantive provision of section 86 (1 ).