Judgment LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J. 1. The respondent has filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for damages on account of loss of a suit-case. He travelled from Delhi to Patna by Flight No. 411 on the 30th May, 1966 with two pieces of luggage deposited, with the Corporation and was issued ticket Nos. 593450 and 593451. On reaching Patna, only one item of the luggage booked under ticket No. 593450 was delivered to him. He obtained a certificate from the Corporation about the non-delivery of the other item which was an attache-case. 4 kilograms in weight. He received a letter from the defendants informing him about the discovery of an unclaimed luggage at Bombay and requesting him to submit a detailed description of the contents of his luggage which he did. According to the defence case, it was found that the luggage at Bombay did not belong to the plaintiff and the same could not be given to him. The defendant offered a sum of Rs. 320.00 (calculated on the basis of the weight of the attache-case at the rate of Rs. 80/-per kilogram) by way of final settlement of the plaintiffs claim on account of the loss which was refused. After serving a notice, the plaintiff filed the present suit claiming a sum of Rs.3330.00 as the value of the lost luggage with interest thereon. 2. In reply to the plaintiffs claim that the defendants wrongly refused to deliver the luggage found at Bombay, they pleaded that the description given by the plaintiff of the attache-case and its contents clearly indicated that the Bombay luggage did not belong to him. It was also suggested that they did not make any commitment in this regard, as wrongly interpreted by the plaintiff. Besides taking several technical defence, the defendants pleaded that their liability was governed by the provisions of the Indian Carriage by Air Act, 1934 and the rules thereunder and they cannot be saddled with a decree based on the assumption that the law relating to the common carrier is applicable in the suit. It was alternatively stated that in one of the conditions mentioned in the ticket issued, it was indicated that the Corporation could not be liable for damages beyond the statutory limit. 3. The trial Court overruled the plea of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, but held that the suit was barred by limitation. It was alternatively stated that in one of the conditions mentioned in the ticket issued, it was indicated that the Corporation could not be liable for damages beyond the statutory limit. 3. The trial Court overruled the plea of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence, but held that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Munsif also recorded a finding that the plaintiff had failed to prove his case of loss on merits. 4. The plaintiff appealed. The learned Subordinate Judge, Patna, who heard the appeal, reversed the finding of the trial Court on the question of limitation and the merits of the case with respect to the loss sustained. These findings have not been challenged before us. I need not, therefore, state the detailed facts relevant to these issues. On the question as to whether the liability of the corporation was statutorily limited, the learned Subordinate Judge referred to The Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and decided the point against the defendants and decreed the suit. The Indian Airlines Corporation and its officers have challenged the decree in the present second appeal. 5. Mr. Samir Kumar Ghose, appearing in support of the appeal contended that the Court below seriously erred in considering the provisions of the 1972 Act which has no application whatsoever to the present case. The loss of the attache-case took place in 1966 and the suit was filed in 1969, that is, before the coming into force of the said Act. He placed before us para 14 of the written statement which clearly mentioned The Indian Carriage by Air Act, 1934 and the rules thereunder and contended that in view of S. 4 thereof read with R. 22(2), the defendants liability was limited to Rs. 320/-. The argument appears to be well founded. 6. The Indian Carriage by Air Act, 1934 was enacted in the wake of the Convention for the unification of the rules relating to the international carriage by air signed on the 12th Oct. 1929 at Warsaw and the preamble expressly mentions that the Convention was in relation to the international carriage by air. Sec. 4 however, empowered the Central Government to apply the rules and any provision of S. 2 to the internal carriage by air within the country by a notification in the official gazette to that effect. 1929 at Warsaw and the preamble expressly mentions that the Convention was in relation to the international carriage by air. Sec. 4 however, empowered the Central Government to apply the rules and any provision of S. 2 to the internal carriage by air within the country by a notification in the official gazette to that effect. In exercise of the said power, the Central Government issued a notification bearing GSR 1967 dt. 11th Jan. 1964 directing that with effect from the 1st of March 1964, S. 2 of the Act and the rules would "apply to all carriage by air and not being international carriage by air." as defined in the first schedule. The provisions relied upon by the defendants were thus made applicable with effect from 1-3-1964 to the domestic flights within the country also. 7. Sec.2 of the Act states that the "rules, being the provisions of the Convention, relating to the rights and liabilities of carriers, passengers, consignors, consignees and other persons shall, subject to the provisions of this Act have the force of law in India in relation to any carriage by air to which those rules apply, irrespective of the nationality of the aircraft performing the carriage." Dealing with the liability for loss of luggage in Chapter III, the R. 22(2) prescribes the limit to the liability of the carrier in the following terms. "(2) In the carriage of registered luggage and of goods, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of Rs. 80.00 (Rupees eighty) per kilogram, unless the consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of the value at delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that that sum is greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery." In the original rules, adopted at the Convention, the amount was expressed in francs, but in view of S.2(5) directing a conversion of the same into rupees, the amount was mentioned as above. Since admittedly, the plaintiff did not make a special declaration of the value of the attache-case for which a supplementary sum was required to be paid, it must be held that the liability of the defendant corporation was limited to Rs. Since admittedly, the plaintiff did not make a special declaration of the value of the attache-case for which a supplementary sum was required to be paid, it must be held that the liability of the defendant corporation was limited to Rs. 320/-as offered by it in 1966. 8 The learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that the application of R. 22(2) was by reason of R. 18 confined to cases of destruction or loss of, or damage to luggage and could not cover the present case where the lost luggage was found at Bombay and illegally not delivered to the plaintiff. This case, which is dependent on evidence, has not been accepted by either of the two Courts below. The case was fought out in the Courts below on the basis that the missing attache-case was lost. 9. The learned counsel also urged that the rule refers to registered articles and it is not proved that in the present case the missing attache-case was registered. There is no merit in this objection either. Chapter II of the rules indicates that a passenger can carry with him small items of luggage in the passengers cabin and has to entrust other items to the carrier and obtain a ticket therefor. The expression "registered luggage" refers to the second category. It is, therefore, not possible to exclude. the application of R.22(2) as suggested. 10. Mr. Ghose has not challenged the right of the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 320.00 by way of compensation for the loss. He, however, said that no decree for interest should be passed as the said amount was offered by the appellants soon after the loss of the luggage which was not accepted by the plaintiff. He appears to be right with respect to the period before the suit. But in view of the later developments, the defendant cannot escape the liability to pay interest pendente lite and future. By the written statement, the defendants denied the entire liability and raised many defences which have been overruled by both the courts below. A plea of limitation was also taken which prevailed before the trial court. In that view, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum since the institution of the suit. 11. A plea of limitation was also taken which prevailed before the trial court. In that view, I hold that the plaintiff is entitled to the interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum since the institution of the suit. 11. For the reasons mentioned above the decree of the lower appellate court is set aside and instead a decree for a sum of Rs. 320/-with interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum with effect from the date of institution of the suit is passed. S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. 12 I agree.