- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Indian Airlines v. D.P Hazra .
Factual and Procedural Background
This appeal arises from a complaint filed by a survivor of an Indian Airlines aircraft accident that occurred on 14 February 1990, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries. The complainant sought compensation for injuries sustained in the accident. The complaint was filed on 22 March 1993, beyond the two-year limitation period prescribed under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. The Delhi State Commission rejected Indian Airlines' contention that the complaint was barred by limitation. Subsequently, the complaint was dismissed for default. The appellant Indian Airlines challenged the State Commission's order rejecting the limitation plea, leading to this appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the complaint filed beyond the two-year limitation period under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, is barred by limitation.
- Whether an acknowledgment letter from Indian Airlines constituted a valid acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, thereby extending the limitation period.
- How the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 30 of the Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, is to be computed in conjunction with the Limitation Act, 1963.
- Whether the provision for extension or condonation of delay under other statutes, such as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, applies to limitation under the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The appellant Indian Airlines contended that the complaint was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the two-year period prescribed under Rule 30 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.
- It was submitted that the two-year limitation period is absolute and cannot be extended since the right to claim damages extinguishes after this period.
Respondent's Arguments
- The complainant argued that there was an acknowledgment from Indian Airlines, via a letter dated 23 March 1991, which should extend the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
- The complainant relied on the letter from Indian Airlines' solicitors indicating that the claim was being processed, suggesting an acknowledgment of liability.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Bharat S. Modi v. British Airways | Interpretation of Rule 30 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and limitation under Consumer Protection Act, 1986 | The court held that the period of limitation prescribed by Rule 30 cannot be extended under Section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, and provisions for condonation of delay do not apply. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court examined the limitation period under Rule 30 of the Second Schedule of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, which prescribes a two-year limitation period for bringing actions for damages from the date of arrival or accident. The court noted that the method of calculating this period is governed by the Limitation Act, 1963.
The appellant argued that the right to claim damages extinguishes after two years, and no extension is possible. The respondent relied on a letter from Indian Airlines' solicitors dated 23 March 1991, claiming it constituted an acknowledgment extending the limitation period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
The court analyzed the letter and concluded it did not amount to an acknowledgment of liability within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, since it merely indicated processing of the claim and requested further information. Consequently, no fresh limitation period could be computed from the date of the letter.
The court further clarified that while Rule 30(2) allows the method of calculating limitation to be determined by the law of the court seized, this does not permit extension of the right to claim damages once extinguished after two years. The court affirmed that provisions for condonation of delay under other statutes, such as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, do not apply to limitation under the Carriage by Air Act.
The court rejected foreign judgments cited by the respondent as not applicable to the legal questions before it.
Based on the above reasoning, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order of the State Commission, and dismissed the complaint as barred by limitation.
Holding and Implications
The appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the Delhi State Commission is set aside, and the complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.
The direct consequence is that complaints filed after the two-year limitation period under Rule 30 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, cannot be entertained, even if there is correspondence or acknowledgment that does not qualify under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The decision clarifies that limitation under the Carriage by Air Act is strict and not subject to extension or condonation provisions under other statutes. No new precedent beyond the interpretation of limitation and acknowledgment provisions is established.
D.P Wadha, President:— 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.
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.
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:—
“30. (I) The right of damages shall be extinguished if an action is not brought within two years, reckoned from the date of arrival at the destination, or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived, or from the date on which the carriage stopped.
(2) The method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the Court seized of the case.
Right to claim damages stands extinguished after expiry of two years if complaint is not filed from the date of accident. The question for consideration is; if period of limitation to be calculated under the Limitation Act, 1963. It was submission of Mr. S. Ransanathan, learned Counsel for the Appellant that on no account this period of two years can be extended as right to damages itself gets extinguished after the expiry of period of two years. But the case of the complainant was that there was acknowledgement from the Indian Airlines which would extend the period of limitation. Reference has been made in this connection to letter datedsw 23.3.91 of the Solicitor of the Indian Airlines where they have stated as under:—
23 March, 1991
Mr. Debi Prasad Hazra, 121, Manicktala Main Road, Calcutta — 700054
Dear Sir,
Re.: Accident to Indian Airlines ‘VT-EPN at Bangalore on 14 February, 1990.
Mr. D.P Hazra — Injured Passenger
We act for Indian Airlines in the matter of the settlement of claims for compensation arising out of the above accident. Indian Airlines has accordingly forwarded to us your Claim Form dated 15 March, 1991 with instructions to process your claim.
We have seen the copies of the Reports/prescriptions which Indian Airlines has forwarded to us. However, these are not entirely legible/clear to us. We note that Dr. M.K Sarkar in his Report of 14 May, 1990 has reported that there has been no external injury. We shall thank you first please to let us know the exact nature of the injuries sustained by you, indicating the Report making reference to it.
We shall also thank you to let us know the number of days you were entirely precluded, as a result of the accident, from attending to your usual business or duties or occupation.
We shall also thank you to please forward to us vouchers/other documentary evidence of actual medical expenses incurred by you and also let us know whether any of these have been reimbursed to you by way of insurance or otherwise.
On receiving you response, we will be in a position to consider you claim.
Thanking you,
Yours faithfully,
Mulla & Mulla & Cragi……
(Partner)
This letter cannot be termed as acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 18 no doubt prescribes that if there is an acknowledgement in writing before the expiry of prescribed period of limitation, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed.
This letter on behalf of the Indian Airlines is not an acknowledgement of any liability on the part of the Indian Airlines. That being so, we need not go further into the question if sub-rule 2 of Rule 30 would extend the period of limitation in the case of any acknowledgement which is valid. Never-the-less, we find that Part III of the Limitation Act, 1963 prescribes as to how the period of limitation is to be computed.
Words used in Sub Rule 2 of Rule 30 that is “method of calculating the period of limitation” would mean the same as what is “computation of period of limitation. We are thus of the view that for the purpose of sub-rule 2 of Rule 30, calculation of period of limitation of two years will have to be calculated in terms of Limitation Act, 1963. We would, however, agree with the proposition that if action is brought after the right to claim damages is extinguished by virtue of sub-rule 2 of Rule 30, there cannot be any extension of limitation. In fact this is also what Section 18 of the Limitation Act states. In Bharat S. Modi v. British Airways, we have taken a view that in view of the Rule 30 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, there cannot be any extension of period of limitation prescribed u/s 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. In that case we were not considering the effect of sub rule (2) of Rule 30 and we also held that provision for consodnation of delay as contained in Sub-Section (2) of Section 24 A would not apply.
We have been referred to some judgements of the foreign courts in support of contention that action would not have been brought after two years as the right itself would extinguish but those judgements are on different aspects and if we accept the contention of the Indian Airlines then sub rule (2) of Rule 30 will become otoise. This Appeal is, therefore, allowed and the impugned order of the State Commission is set aside. Complaint is dismissed as barred by limitation.
Alert