JUDGMENT :

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2.1 Carriage by Air Act, 1972, incorporates international air traffic conventions of Warsaw, 1929, Hague Protocol, 1955, and Montréal Convention, 1999 in the First, Second, and the Third Schedules of the Act. Rule 30 of the Second Schedule, which incorporates the Hague Protocol, provides that the right to damages will be extinguished if an action is not brought within a period of two years from the dates mentioned in the Rule. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30 provides that the method of calculating the period of limitation shall be determined by the law of the Court seized of the matter. As Limitation Act, 1963 is the law applicable to the Courts in India, it is contended on behalf of the consumers of the Airlines that the exclusion of periods of limitation provided in the Limitation Act shall apply for computation of the period of two years mentioned in Rule 30 (1).

2.2 Two substantial questions of law have arisen for our consideration. The first relates to the applicability of the Limitation Act when the right itself is extinguished, as against a barring of remedy, as in the case of Section 3 of Limitation Act. The second question is whether the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 expressly exclude the Limitation Act, 1963 as provided in Section 29.

2.3 On the first question, we have resolved the apparent conflict between Sub-rule (1) and Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30 by referring to the legislative history of the conventions as provided in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969. The travaux preparatoires leading to the formation of the Convention establishes that the Convention sought to exclude any interruption in the period of two years specified in the Article. We have also followed the well - recognized principle that while interpreting municipal laws giving effect to International Conventions, Courts must endeavor to maintain uniformity in the interpretation in order to sub-serve the very purpose of the Conventions. Having examined the judgments of various jurisdictions, we are satisfied that they are in consonance with the interpretation that we have adopted in construing Sub-rule (2) of Rule 30. Sub-rule (2) in our opinion does not derogate from the intent of Sub-rule (1) excluding the applicability of the Limitation Act but merely empowers the Court to determine the period of two years.

2.4 On the second question, after examining the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972, we have held that Rule 30 expressly excludes the Limitation Act as provided in Section 29.

Facts and Proceedings:

3. The Appellant is a sole proprietary concern engaged in the business of imports and exports. The Appellant sent a cargo containing fruits and vegetables from Mumbai to Canada via London by employing services of British Airways, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’ on 04.01.2010. However, on 06.01.2010 due to bad weather conditions in London the flight could not depart to Canada, as a result the fruits and vegetables were damaged and were consequently destroyed. The Appellant lodged a claim for Rs.1,70,221.56/- with the Respondent. On 30.06.2010, the Appellant once again sent a similar cargo containing fruits and vegetables from Mumbai to Canada. Yet again, the cargo could not be sent due to packaging and other issues and, as a consequence, the cargo had to be destroyed. The Appellant raised a claim dated 20.07.2010 for Rs.4,27,922/-. Acknowledging the receipt of the notice, the Respondent sent a mail on 02.11.2010 offering to settle the matter at 50% of the claim amount.

4. It is in the above-referred background that the Appellant instituted a suit being OS No. 5164/2012 on 15.09.2012 before the City Civil Court, Mumbai for recovery of the amount of Rs.9,17,642.56/- with interest at the rate of 21% per annum² [For completion of the narration, it may be stated th