Summary
An exporter's perishable cargo sent by British Airways in 2010 was destroyed, and the airline offered to settle at 50% of the claim. The exporter sued in September 2012, more than two years later. The trial court used Section 18 of the Limitation Act to treat the settlement offer as an acknowledgment that saved limitation; the Bombay High Court held the suit barred. The Supreme Court held that Rule 30(1) of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 extinguishes the right to damages itself, so the Limitation Act cannot revive or extend it. Read with the travaux preparatoires of the Warsaw Convention and the consistent decisions of foreign courts, Rule 30(2) leaves to the forum only how and when an action is brought within two years; it does not import suspension or exclusion of time. Rule 30 expressly excludes the Limitation Act within Section 29(2). The appeal was dismissed.
Issues
- Whether the Limitation Act, 1963, including Section 18 on acknowledgment, applies to the two-year period in Rule 30 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.
- Whether Rule 30(2), which leaves the method of calculating the period to the law of the court seized of the case, imports the exclusions in Part III of the Limitation Act.
- Whether the Carriage by Air Act expressly excludes the Limitation Act within the meaning of Section 29(2).
Provisions considered
- Second Schedule, Rule 30, Carriage by Air Act, 1972Sub-rule (1) extinguishes the right to damages if no action is brought within two years. Sub-rule (2) only lets the forum decide when an action is properly brought within that period; it allows no suspension or extension. (¶¶ 14, 15.1, 15.2, 27, 43, 57, 59)
- Section 29(2), Limitation Act, 1963Express exclusion can be gathered from the scheme and language of the special law (Hukumdev Narain Yadav). The Air Act is a complete code, and Rule 30 expressly excludes Sections 4 to 24. (¶¶ 46, 47, 48, 52, 60)
- Sections 3, 11, 18 and 27, Limitation Act, 1963Section 3 bars only the remedy. Where a statute extinguishes the right itself, as Sections 11(2) and 27 recognise, limitation provisions such as acknowledgment under Section 18 have no application. (¶¶ 5, 12, 13.2, 13.4, 15.2, 45)
- Third Schedule, Rule 35, Carriage by Air Act, 1972Rule 35, which gives effect to the Montreal Convention, was treated as materially the same as Rule 30 of the Second Schedule, so the analysis applies to both. (¶¶ 17.2, 19.1, 19.3)
Held
- Rule 30(1) speaks of the 'right' to damages being 'extinguished', not of a remedy being barred. Once two years pass from the specified dates, nothing remains to enforce, and the Limitation Act, including acknowledgment under Section 18, cannot apply (following East and West Steamship Co.). (¶¶ 15.1, 15.2)
- Under Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention, the travaux preparatoires of the Warsaw Convention may be used. They show that the drafters adopted the Italian proposal and rejected suspension or interruption by forum law. Article 29(2) leaves to the forum only how an action is commenced within the two years. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.1, 25.3, 27)
- Courts interpreting international conventions should aim for uniformity with other jurisdictions. Decisions from the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia consistently hold that domestic limitation law does not extend the two-year period. The contrary view of the Gujarat High Court in Jatnadevi Tejraj Jain does not reflect the correct interpretation. (¶¶ 29, 30, 32, 34, 35, 37, 38, 41, 42, 43)
- Under Section 29(2), express exclusion need not name the provisions of the Limitation Act; it is enough that it arises directly from the special law. The Air Act and its Schedules form a complete code, and Rule 30 expressly excludes the Limitation Act. (¶¶ 47, 48, 52, 54, 58, 59, 60)
Result
Appeal dismissed. The Bombay High Court's holding that the suit for damages was barred under Rule 30 of the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 was upheld. Parties to bear their own costs.