Biman Bangladesh Airlines and others Vs. Al Rojoni Enterprise, 2010

 

Supreme Court

Appellate Division

(Civil)

Present:

Md. Tafazzul Islam CJ

Md. Abdul Matin J

ABM Khairul Haque J

Surendra Kumar Sinha J

 Biman Bangladesh Airlines and others………….Petitioners

Vs.

Al Rojoni Enterprise, repre­sented by its Proprietor Wahid Ullah Chowdhury……..Respondent

 Order

January 6, 2010.

Lawyers Involved:

Akther Imam, Senior Advocate, instructed by Zahirul Islam, Advocate-on-Record-For the Petitioners.

A. B. M. Baizid, Advocate, instructed by Syed Mahbubur Rahamn, Advocate-on-Record-For the Respondent.

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 444 of 2009.

(From the judgment and order dated 26.11.2008 passed by the High Court Division in First Appeal No.28 of 2004)

Order

ABM Khairul Haque J. – This is a peti­tion for leave to appeal in respect of the judgment and decree dated 26.11.2008, passed by the High Court Division, in allowing the First Appeal No.28 of 2004 and in decreeing the suit for Tk. 21,19,971.60 with interest of the rate of 8% per annum.

2.The facts of the case, in brief, are that the respondent filed a money suit being the Money Suit No. 21 of 2001 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Third Court, Dhaka, praying for a decree for Tk. 41,50,500/- against the petitioner towards demurrage, compensation etc., contending, inter alia that the respondent imported watch-parts from Hong Kong worth U.S.$ 18,911/- to be delivered in Dhaka Airport on 22.01.1999 by Biman but it was never delivered in spite of enquires, notices and reminders. The peti­tioner contested the suit by filing a written statement denying all material averments made in the plaint.

3. After hearing, the Trial Court, dismissed the suit.

4. Thereafter, the respondent filed the First Appeal No. 28 of 2004 before the High Court Division. After hearing, the High Court Division found that the petitioners admitted its failure to deliver the goods and offered payment of compensation of Tk. 3,15,560/- in lieu of goods and that since the plaintiff did not declare the value of the goods at the time of booking, it is entitled to get compensation for non­ delivery of such goods at the rate men­tioned in the contract in terms of the Airway bill. The High Court Division cal­culated the compensation at U.S. $ 43,89.75 which comes to Tk. 21,19,971.60 at the relevant time and decreed the suit accordingly.

5. Mr. Akther Imam, Senior Advocate, appears on behalf of the petitioners while Mr. A. B. M. Biazid appears on behalf of the respondent.

6. Mr. Akther Imam, the learned Advocate for the petitioners, submits that admittedly the goods were scheduled to arrive at Dhaka Airport on 22.01.1999 but it did not, which was within the knowledge of the respondent. The proprietor of the respondent by his letter dated 04.04.1999 to the Managing Director of the petitioner No.1 and another letter dated 22.04.1999, to the Additional Inspector General of Police, complained about the loss of his goods. But the respondent filed its suit on 24.05.2001, much beyond the period of limitation of two years. He further submits that the High Court Division erred in law in concluding that the rate of U.S. $ 20/- per Kg. as stipulated in the Airway bill would vary with the market price of gold prevailing at the relevant time but in view of the contract of carriage contained in the Airway bill if the goods were lost, the car­riers liability would not exceed U.S. $20/- per Kg. and that the said rate of U.S.$ 20/- per Kg. was based on U.S.$ 42.22 per ounce of gold and no market rate of gold otherwise than the rate stipulated in the Airway bill could be applied in calculating the compensation payable to the respon­dent. He further submits that the liability of the Biman is limited by the provisions of Rule 22 of the First Schedule of the 1966 Act and in terms of the Airway bill but the High Court Division committed an error of law by awarding interest at the rate of 8% per annum on the decretal amount in violation of the aforesaid Rule 22 and the Airway bill.

7. The above submissions of the learned Advocate for the petitioners have got sub­stance, as such, leave is granted on the fol­lowing points:

I. Whether in view of the knowledge of the respondent on 04.04.1999 and 22.04.1999 that the goods had been lost, the suit filed on 24.05.2001 is barred by limitation.

II. Whether the carrier’s liability is to be calculated at the rate of U.S $ 20/- per Kg., based on U.S. $ 42.22 per ounce of gold at the rate as stipulated in the Airway bill or would vary with the market price of gold.

III. Whether the High Court Division committed an error of law by award­ing interest on the decretal amount in violation of rule 22 of the First Schedule of the 1966 Act and the con­tract contained in the Airway Bill.

8. Security of Tk.1000/- is to be deposited within 1 (one) month.

9. The preparation of the paper-book is dispensed with as prayed for.

Let the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated  26.11.2008 passed by the High Court Division in First Appeal No. 28 of 2004, be stayed till dis­posal of the appeal.

Ed.

Source : VII ADC (2010) 415

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.