ORDER
A.B. Palkar, J.
1. All these petitions are filed by the heirs of the persons who died in a plane crash of the plane of Indian Airlines which took place on 26-4-1993 at Aurangabad. Flight bearing No. I.C. 491 operated by the Indian Airlines met with an accident immediately after it took off and in the said accident number of persons died and the present petitioners are the heirs of some of the deceased persons.
2. After the mishap enquiry was conducted under the Chairmanship of the Hon’ble Justice V.A. Mohta (as he then was) of this Court and in the report he has made certain observations which are not germane to the issue to be decided in the present revision petitions and, therefore, I am not referring to the same.
3. The petitioners in these petitions were offered by the respondent i.e. Indian Airlines an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for each of the deceased who were admittedly about 12 years of age. However, while making this offer the Indian Airlines wanted to put a condition that the heirs of the deceased should accept this amount in full and final settlement of their claim and should not make any further claim on the ground of negligence or willful act on the part of any employee of the Indian Airlines.
4. Since the heirs of the deceased wanted to make out their claim on the ground of negligence or willful act as the case may be they did not accept this condition that after payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- nothing further would be paid to them and that will be a final discharge of the liability of the respondent Indian Airlines. Aforesaid suits have been filed by the heirs of the deceased claiming different amounts of compensation depending on the financial condition of the deceased persons their source of earning and other circumstances. In the suits, the heirs of the deceased who were plaintiffs filed applications that the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- which is minimum amount payable by way of compensation even in the absence of any fault on the part of the employees of Indian Airlines, should be paid to them forthwith and, therefore, this amount was claimed by them by way of interim compensation and the request was made to the Court to direct the defendants to pay the said amounts at the interest of 18 per cent per annum being the statutory liability under the provisions of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.
5. The respondent Indian Airlines resisted the claim for interim compensation and contended that unless the plaintiffs accept the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- in final discharge of their entire liability for the act resulting in the death of deceased persons, they cannot be called upon by the Court to pay any amount.
6. These applications filed in the various suits were heard by the learned trial Judge and the learned Judge having rejected their applications, the heirs have filed these different revision applications.
7. As the point involved in all these revision petitions is same, they can be disposed of by common order.
8. The facts not being in dispute, the only question is whether the stand of the respondent Indian Airlines that on payment of Rs. 5,00,000/- the petitioners (plaintiffs) are not entitled to pursue their remedy further either on the ground of negligence or willful neglect on the part of the employees of the Indian Airlines is legal, correct and justified in the facts and circumstances of the case and whether the interpretation of the rule put by the learned Counsel for the respondent deserves to be accepted.
9. I have heard at length the arguments advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent and I am convinced that the Indian Airlines has taken a stand which is totally inconsistent with the provisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder.
10. The learned trial Judge has referred to Rule 17 which is reproduced hereunder :-
Rule 17 :
“The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by the passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the Air-Craft or in the course of the operations of embarking or disembarking.”
Rule 22(1) of the Rules is as under :
“22(1) :
“In the event of death of passenger or any bodily injury or wound suffered by passenger which results in a permanent disablement incapacitating him from engaging in or being occupied which is usual business or occupation the liability of the Carrier for each shall be Rs. 5,00,000/- if the passenger be 12 or more years of the age and Rs. 2,50,000/- if the passenger be below 12 years of age on the date of the accident.”
Rule – 25 :
“The limits of liability specified in Rule 22 shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servant or agent done with intend to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result, provided that in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent if it is also proved that he was acting within the scope of his employment”.
Now bare reading of the Rules show that carrier is liable to pay damages in case of death of a passenger or in case of bodily injury (which is not relevant to this case) when the accident is caused in course of operations or embarking or disembarking the flight.
11. By Rule 22(1) the limit of liability is fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/- in case the person deceased is above 12 years and Rs. 2,50,000/- in case person deceased is less than 12 years on the date of the accident. It is in case of death or permanent disability incapacitating the persons from engaging in or being occupied which is usual business or occupation.
12. As per Rule 25, the limits of liability in Rule 22 do not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servant or agent done with intend…..” It is clear from the above Rules that what is covered by Rule 25 is the limit of liability incorporated in Rule 22. The stand of the respondent that this limit of liability is tantamount to the final limit and when a person conies to a Court with a suit for damages, then he should be called upon either to accept Rs. 5,00,000/- in full and final settlement of the claim or should be asked to wait till the final decision of the suit, is not at all acceptable.
13. The learned Counsel for the respondent contended that there is no provision for granting any interim relief. However, if the Court has powers to grant final relief on establishment of the claim, then the fixed minimum liability which has to be discharged even in the absence of proof of negligence or willful act on the part of the Indian Airlines or its employees has to be discharged by the respondent. There is no escape from that liability and denying this claim on the ground that it is a claim by way of interim relief is tantamount to denying the petitioners their legitimate due which ought to have been paid to them immediately after the accident. Indian Airlines having taken a stand that they would pay only after discharge of full liability is given by the petitioners has resulted in the petitioners having compelled to come to the Court for seeking this interim relief, and therefore, they are justified in claiming the interest. The orders passed by the learned Judge in these various suits on the applications of the heirs of the deceased are legally unsustainable. The learned Judge has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him by law by refusing the interim relief to the heirs of the deceased persons and because of this the widow and the children of the deceased have suffered a great lot as the matter has been pending for considerable length of time and nothing has been paid to them.
14. The learned Counsel for the respondent has brought to my notice the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 3610 of 1991, Smt. Indu Toshniwal & others v. Union of India. Having gone through the entire judgment, I do not find that it in any way supports the case of the Indian Airlines and it has been emphasised in this judgment that the provisions show that the limit of compensation is to be normal liability and only in exceptional clear cases set out in Article 22, which is to avoid the limit that is how the expressions in that rule are used. It was contended before the Division Bench that this limit fixed in the year 1989 which was revised from time to time is also meagre. However, this contention was rejected by the Division Bench and it is pointed out that at present it is fixed at Rs. 5,00,000/-. It was fixed in the year 1989 and may be revised from time to time. It being subject to revision, the Court declined to hold that this limit of liability is ultra vires. In my opinion, this judgment does not help the respondent as the observations of the Division Bench in the said judgment are contrary to the stand taken by the respondent.
15. In this view of the matter, I am inclined to allow these revision applications and direct the respondent Indian Airlines to pay minimum liability of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the heirs of the deceased (plaintiffs) in these various suits with interest at 18 per cent per annum from the date of accident. It is made clear that the plaintiffs in these suits would be entitled to claim further amounts only if they can prove the liability of the Indian Airlines strictly in accordance with the provisions of The Carriage by Air Act, 1972 and the Rules referred to above.
Accordingly Rule is made absolute in above terms.
16. Revision allowed.