Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

26. Learned counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 / plaintiffs then drew the attention of this Court to Article III Rule 6 of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 and would submit that the said clause nowhere stipulates that it should be a civil suit in a civil court. According to him, if the clause is read literally, it does not exclude even the presentation in wrong forum and approaching the correct forum later, in which case, section 14 of the Limitation Act can be invoked. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.Nos.1245 to 1247 of 2007 According to him, the case of the plaintiffs is protected by the Constitution Bench Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Economic Transport Organisation's case reported in (2010) 4 SCC 114 referred to supra. According to him, when the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that filing complaint before the Consumer Forum is also to be treated as a suit for the purpose of Carriers Act, the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Appellant/first defendant for the purpose of applicability of section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act, the earlier proceedings must be a suit is without basis. According to him, when the State has not chosen to insert words as contended by the first defendant, it is a matter of causus omissus and it cannot be read into, to prevent the rights of the persons affected due to poor performance of the carrier of the goods.

57. The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant/first defendant namely (a) A single bench judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of M/s.M.R.F. Limited and another vs. M/s. Singapore Airlines Limited and another reported in 2014-1- L.W.921; and (b) A Single Bench Judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 23.01.2018 in the case of British Airways vs. M/s.Bhagwandas B.Ramchandani have no bearing for the facts of the instant case, as the instant case deals with the carriage of goods by sea, whereas in the aforesaid decisions, it relates to carriage of goods by Air. Further in the aforesaid decisions, the plaintiffs chose a wrong forum, whereas in the case on hand, the respective plaintiffs had chosen the correct forum at the time of institution of the consumer complaints. In both the decisions https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.Nos.1245 to 1247 of 2007 referred to supra, the Court has observed that having chosen a wrong forum to make a claim, the plaintiffs cannot take advantage of their own wrong, whereas in the case on hand, the facts are totally different as on the date of institution of consumer complaints, the said consumer complaints were infact maintainable in law and only after the subsequent decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oberai Forwarding Agency's case reported in 2000 (1) CTC 556 referred to supra, there was a change of law and only thereafter, the plaintiffs pursuant to the order passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission were constrained to file civil suits for the same relief. Hence, the aforesaid decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the Appellant/first defendant is not applicable to the facts of the instant case.

60. The Arbitration and Conciliation Act is also a special enactment like that of Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925. The https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.Nos.1245 to 1247 of 2007 Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Goa vs. Western Builders reported in AIR 2006 SC 2525 held that section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to Arbitration and Conciliation Act also as there is no express exclusion of section 14 of the Limitation Act under the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. Infact in the aforesaid decision, the party had prosecuted before a wrong forum bonafide, even then the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that section 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable. In the case on hand, the respective plaintiffs had initiated the consumer complaints bonafide before the correct forum, on the date when the said complaints were filed and only thereafter, in view of the law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Oberai Forwarding Agency's case reported in 2000 (2) CTC 556 referred to supra, the respective plaintiffs were constrained to pursue the civil remedy by filing suits before the City Civil Court at Chennai.