Kerala High Court
Muhammed Ali vs Union Of India on 9 April, 2021
W.P(C).No.9682/2021-I 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.V.ASHA
FRIDAY, THE 09TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 19TH CHAITHRA, 1943
WP(C).No.9682 OF 2021(I)
PETITIONER:
MUHAMMED ALI
AGED 36 YEARS
S/O.HAMZA, R/AT MALOL MEETHAL, URALLOOR P.O.,
QUILANDY, KOZHIKKODE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN
SRI.ARUN FRANCIS
SRI.K.P.MUHAMMAD ARIF
SHRI.ABDUL JALEEL.U.K
RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL
AVIATION, NEW DELHI-110001.
2 AIR INDIA EXPRESS LIMITED,
REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
CORPORATE OFFICE, AIR INDIA EXPRESS LTD.,
DH ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682016.
SRI P.VIJAYAKUMAR, ASGI
SRI V.ABRAHAM MARKOS, STANDING COUNSEL
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
09.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
W.P(C).No.9682/2021-I 2
P.V.ASHA, J.
-----------------------------------------------------
W.P(c) No.9682 of 2021-I
----------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 9th day of April, 2021
JUDGMENT
In this Writ Petition, the petitioner was a passenger, who got injured in the
accident which occurred on 07.08.2020 at the Karippur International Airport,
Kozhikode during landing of the Air India Express Dubai - Kozhikode Flight IX-
1344, an international air carrier.
2. The petitioner has prayed for a direction to the respondents to offer
compensation as required under Rule 25 to 29 and Rule 22(6) of Schedule 3 of the
Carriage by Air Act, 1972 at the similar range and level of compensation fixed as
in Exts.P11 and P11(a), laid down in Paragraph 49 of the judgment in National
Insurance Co. Ltd. V M/s. Bhogura Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. [(2009(1) SCC 267)] and
also to grant him liberty to approach the Consumer Forum for the balance amount.
He has also prayed for a direction to the respondents to pay the liability of One
Lakh (now enhanced to 1,38,000) Special Drawing Right as injury compensation
and loss of baggage under Rule 21(1) and 22(1) of the Third Schedule of the Act
and cargo and baggage claim.
3. The 2nd respondent has filed preliminary counter affidavits in similar
Writ Petitions, explaining the procedure followed till this time. The learned Senior
Counsel for the 2nd respondent submits that offer letters have not been issued in
this Writ Petition.
4. The learned Senior Counsel for the 2nd respondent also submits that
the claims would be considered in accordance with the priority with reference to
the nature of injuries sustained by the passengers. In the case of the petitioner, who
has submitted claims, that will be considered in accordance with the very same
priority. It is also submitted that offer letter would be issued at the earliest and as
and when such offer letter is issued, the petitioner can appear before the
respondents for negotiation, which would be considered on the basis of materials.
It is also pointed out that the offer would be made as without prejudice letters and
the petitioner would be free to attend the negotiation.
5. A similar case was already disposed of by Ext.P11 judgment dated
27.01.2021 in W.P.(C).No.27970/2020 with the following direction:-
"In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the
2nd respondent to disburse the amount of ₹1,51,08,234/- in respect of
compensation offered in respect of the 2nd petitioner, to the
petitioners forthwith, in accordance with law. If the petitioners are
aggrieved/dissatisfied by the offer made by the 2nd respondent in
respect of compensation for the death of Sharafudeen or for the injury
of the 1st petitioner, it is made clear that the petitioners will be at
liberty to approach this Court or any other appropriate legal forum
for redressal of their grievances, in accordance with law."
This Writ Petition is also disposed of, in the light of the aforesaid direction,
making it clear that the petitioner would be at liberty to approach this Court or any
other appropriate legal forum for redressal of his grievances in accordance with
law, in case he is dissatisfied with the offer, which would be made by the 2 nd
respondent.
Sd/- (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE)
rtr/
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)NO.32550/10 DATED 20.07.2011 REPORTED
IN 2011(3)KHC 199 (ABDUL SALAM VS. UNION OF
INDIA).
EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WA.NO.1197/2011 DATED 25.08.2011 REPORTED
IN 2011(3)KHC 761 (NATIONAL AVIATION
COMPANY VS. ABDUL SALAM).
EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE TEXT OF THE SPEECH DATED
30.04.2008 OF THE MINISTER FOR CIVIL
AVIATION.
EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE WORKING PAPER BY
INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION
DATED 27.09.2010.
EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE
PREPARATIONS IN THE INTERNATIONAL
CONFERENCE WHICH LED TO THE MONTREAL
CONVENTION DATED 14.05.1999.
EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN
W.P(C)NO.23097/2011 DATED 05.09.2011.
EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)NO.23097/2011 DATED 29.09.2011.
EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE FILLED IN FORMAT GIVEN TO
THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 03.4.2021.
EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT VOUCHER
PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10 TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD DATED
07.08.2020 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(A) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD DATED
08.08.2020 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(B) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD DATED
09.08.2020 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(C) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD DATED
10.08.2020 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(D) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD DATED
23.09.2020 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(E) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD DATED
12.03.2021 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(F) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD DATED
21.03.2021 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P10(G) TRUE COPY OF THE MEDICAL RECORD DATED
29.03.2021 OF THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
WP(C)NO.27970/2020 DATED 27.1.2021 BY THIS
HON'BLE COURT.
EXHIBIT P11(A) TRUE COPY OF THE OFFER VOUCHER IN THE NAME
OF AMEENA SHERIN.
EXHIBIT P12 TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL
NO.2914/2019 DATED 03.03.2020.
