INDIAN AIRLINES Vs. D.P. HAZRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal by the Indian Airlines, Opposite Party in a complaint by the Respondent, is directed against the order of the Delhi State Commission dated 27.6.95 rejecting its contention that the complaint was barred by limitation under the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. When this Appeal was filed, complaint was still pending with the State Commission. It was yet to be considered on merits. Normally, we do not interfere with the interim order but this appeal was filed in 1995 and we are told that the complaint itself stood dismissed for default. This being the present position, this Petition would not have survived for consideration. However, it is submitted before us that there is likelihood of an application being filed before the State Commission for setting aside the order dismissing the complaint in default and restoring the same. In these circumstances, we proceed to consider the question which is on law and may effect many cases.

(2.) An aircraft of the appellant, Indian Airlines, met with an accident on 14.2.90 resulting in the death of many passengers and injuries to others. The complaint is by one of the survivors whose complaint was for compensation for having suffered injuries in the said accident. He filed a complaint on 22.3.93. It was beyond the period two years from the date of accident occurred. As noted above, the objection of Indian Airlines that the complaint was barred by limitation was rejected.

(3.) The Carriage by Air Act, 1972, for the purpose of claiming damages, applies to travel inside the country in view of the notifications dated 5.7.98 and 26.3.92 issued by the Central Government under section 8 of that Act. Since both the schedules would apply to air travel in the country and are not limited to international carriage of persons, luggage and goods, we may refer to Rule 30 of the Second Schedule which reads as under:-