Disposed

Ameena Sherine .E v. Union of India

Kerala HC27 Jan 2021WP(C)/27970/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, legal heirs of a deceased in an international air carrier accident, sought direct payment of dues and liberty to approach the Consumer Forum. The Court noted incomplete claims for two petitioners but directed immediate payment of a substantial offer made for the minor daughter's injury compensation.

What did the court decide?

Directed 2nd Respondent to disburse ₹1,51,08,234/- in respect of compensation offered for the 2nd petitioner forthwith.

Ameena Sherine .E Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.NAGARESH

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021/7TH MAGHA, 1942

¶5

WP(C).No.27970 OF 2020(U)

¶6

PETITIONERS:

¶7

1 AMEENA SHERINE E, AGED 23 YEARS, W/O LATE SHARAFUDEEN, R/AT MELEMARUTHAKOTTIL HOUSE, PILASSERY POST, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673571.

¶8

2 FATHIMA IZZA(MINOR), AGED 2 YEARS, D/O LATE SHARAFUDEEN, R/AT MELEMARUTHAKOTTIL HOUSE, PILASSERY POST, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673571. (REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER AMEENA SHERIN.E)

¶9

3 MOOSA M.M., AGED 67 YEARS, R/AT MELEMARUTHAKOTTIL HOUSE, PILASSERY POST, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673571.

¶10

4 AMINA P.K., AGED 60 YEARS, W/O MOOSA M.M, R/AT MELEMARUTHAKOTTIL HOUSE, PILASSERY POST, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE-673571.

¶11

BY ADVS. SRI.KODOTH SRIDHARAN SRI.K.P.MUHAMMAD ARIF SHRI.ABDUL JALEEL.U.K

¶12

RESPONDENTS:

¶13

1 UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION, NEW DELHI-110001.

¶14

WP(C) No.27970/2020

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

2 NATIONAL AVIATION COMPANY OF INDIA LTD., (FORMERLY AIR INDIA CORPORATION), REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE (AIR INDIA EXPRESS), DH ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682016.

¶17

THE ADDRESS OF R2 IS CORRECTED AND SUBSTITUTED AS AIR INDIA EXPRESS LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, AIR INDIA EXPRESS LTD., DH ROAD,ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682016

¶18

AS PER ORDER DATED 18.12.2020 IN IA NO.1/2020 IN WP(C) 27970/2020.

¶19

R2 BY ADV. SRI.JOSEPH KODIANTHARA (SR.) R2 BY ADV. SRI.V.ABRAHAM MARKOS R2 BY ADV. SRI.ABRAHAM JOSEPH MARKOS R2 BY ADV. SRI.ISAAC THOMAS R2 BY ADV. SHRI.ALEXANDER JOSEPH MARKOS R2 BY ADV. SHRI.SHARAD JOSEPH KODIANTHARA R2 BY ADV. SHRI. GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR R1 BY SRI P.VIJAYAKUMAR ASGI

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(C) No.27970/2020

: 3 :

J U D G M E N T

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Dated this the 27^th day of January, 2021

¶26

The petitioners, who are legal heirs of late

¶27

Sharafudeen who died in an international air carrier accident on 07.10.2020, have approached this Court seeking to direct the respondents to pay the admitted dues to the petitioners at a modest estimate as done in Exts.P2 and P7 without insisting for a settlement voucher in view of Rule 26 of Schedule 3 of the Carriage by Air Act and the principles stated in paragraph 49 in National Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Bhogura Polyfab Private Limited [(2009) 1 SCC 267] and grant liberty to the petitioners to approach the Consumer Forum under the Consumer Protection Act as held in Trans Mediteranian Airways v. Universal Exports [(2011) 10 SCC 316] instead of civil courts as in Ext.P2. The petitioners further seek to direct the respondents to pay the liability of ₹1 lakh Special Drawing Right (now enhanced to ₹1,13,100/-

¶28

WP(C) No.27970/2020

¶29

: 4 :

¶30

Special Drawing Right) as death compensation of deceased Sharafudeen and for loss of baggage making a total of ₹1,14,231/- Special Drawing Rights under Rules 21(1) and 22(1) of the 3^rd Schedule of the Act and cargo and baggage claim along with interest over and above the second tier admitted liability and the injury compensation claim of petitioners 1 and 2.

¶31

When this writ petition came up for hearing on 12.01.2021, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent pointed out that the petitioners have not submitted any claim to the 2^nd respondent. The learned counsel for the petitioners, in answer, submitted that the 2^nd respondent accepts claim applications only along with a Receipt, Discharge and Indemnity Form duly signed and if the petitioners sign such receipt, they will not be able to dispute the adequacy of the amount offered by the 2^nd respondent. Thereupon, the petitioners were directed by this Court to submit their claims immediately and respondents were directed to consider the claim and report the probable amount

WP(C) No.27970/2020

: 5 :

of offer.

Today, when this writ petition was taken up, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2^nd respondent submitted that the application for compensation in respect of 1^st petitioner's daughter (2^nd petitioner herein) received by the 2^nd respondent was complete, whereas for the claims in respect of the deceased and in respect of the 1^st petitioner, the 2^nd respondent has sought further documents/proof from the petitioners.

¶36

The learned Standing Counsel for the 2^nd respondent submitted that on the basis of the claim in respect of the 2^nd petitioner-daughter, the 2^nd respondent has offered ₹1,51,08,234/- as compensation. The petitioners submitted that they are satisfied by the said amount offered by the 2^nd respondent.

¶37

The learned counsel for the petitioners urged that the 2^nd respondent may be directed to pay the minimum admitted amounts towards compensation for the death of the deceased and for injuries of the 1^st petitioner. This Court finds

¶38

WP(C) No.27970/2020

¶39

: 6 :

¶40

that even the applications of the petitioners in respect of those claims are not complete inasmuch as the 2^nd respondent has sought further documents. If the 2^nd respondent considers those claims also and make offers to the satisfaction of the petitioners, there may not require any adjudication of the issue.

¶41

In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2^nd respondent to disburse the amount of ₹1,51,08,234/- in respect of compensation offered in respect of the 2^nd petitioner, to the petitioners forthwith, in accordance with law. If the petitioners are aggrieved/dissatisfied by the offer made by the 2^nd respondent in respect of compensation for the death of Sharafudeen or for the injury of the 1^st 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.

¶42

Sd/- N. NAGARESH, JUDGE

aks/27.01.2021

WP(C) No.27970/2020

: 7 :

APPENDIX

PETITIONERS' EXHIBITS:

¶48

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN WPC NO.32550/2010 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	A TRUE COPY OF THE TEXT OF THE SPEECH DATED 30.04.2008 OF THE MINISTER FOR CIVIL AVIATION.
EXHIBIT P4	A TRUE COPY OF THE WORKING PAPER BY INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION ORGANIZATION DATED 27/09/2010.
EXHIBIT P5	A TRUE COPY OF THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE PREPARATORIES IN THE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE WHICH LED TO THE MONTREAL CONVENTION DATED 14/05/1999.
EXHIBIT P6	TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN WPC NO.23097/2011 DATED 5/09/2011.
EXHIBIT P7	TRUE COPY OF THE COMMON JUDGMENT IN WP(C)NO.23097/2011 AND WA NO.1380/2011 DATED 29/09/2011.
EXHIBIT P8	TRUE COPY OF THE FILLED IN FORMAT GIVEN TO THE 2ND RESPONDENT DATED 9/9/2020.
EXHIBIT P9	TRUE COPY OF THE SETTLEMENT VOUCHER PREPARED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10	TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2914/2019 DATED 3/3/2020.

¶49

Ameena Sherine .E v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ameena Sherine .E v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ance O.Reji, Vs the Divisional Manager

T.T.Sunny Vs State of Kerala

The Insurance Director Vs Amina Sebastian

Rejumon Varghese Vs Government of Kerala

T.M.Abdul Hameed Khan Vs Government of Kerala

Rejumon Varghese Vs Kerala Land Development Corporation Limited