Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. To say that the suit was time barred, Air India relies on Sailesh Textile Industries Vs. British Airways and Anr 2003 (69) DRJ 683 RFA (OS) 18/2007 Page 3 where, noticing the law declared by the Supreme Court in East and West Steamship Co., Georgetown, Madra Vs S.K. Ramalingam Chettiar [1960] 3 SCR 820, the Court held that Clause 18 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act provides that the carrier can be liable for damage sustained if there is loss to the registered luggage or the cargo. The plaintiff's case fell under Clause 18 (1) of the 1972 Act. In terms of clauses 29 and 30, a suit filed beyond the period of two years is barred by limitation. Provisions of the Schedule to the 1972 Act are clear and unambiguous and provide for a period of limitation within which a suit is to be filed to claim damages for loss of goods, whether it be loss to the goods or whether loss to the owner. The suit, having been filed the beyond the period prescribed period of two years, is barred by limitation.

It was submitted that the decision of the Supreme Court in East & West Steamship is of no assistance in limiting the carrier's liability, since the expression and phraseology used by the Carriage by Sea Act was entirely different from the expressions used in the 1972 Act. Learned counsel also relied on the decision in Ethiopian Airways v Federal Chemical Works AIR 2005 Del 258, where it was observed that:

"13. The concept of loss or damage suffered by any account by the shipper or consignee, is not the same as the loss and damage referable to the goods. We are relying upon the judgment of M/s.Viz Sales Corporation Vs.Lufthansa, German Airlines's case (supra) and approve the reasoning of the learned single Judge. In paragraph-18 of the East and West Steamship Co. V/s.S K Ramalingam Chettiar's case (supra) the Supreme Court took note that paragraph 8 spoke of loss or damage to or in connection with the goods but the legislature in 6th paragraph of the Article left the words 'loss or damage' unqualified. Had, therefore, words 'to or in connection with the goods' been incorporated in paragraph-6 as well as after the words 'loss or damage', the Supreme Court would not have treated the same as unqualified, which was so in their absence.."