SRILANKAN AIRTHNES LTD Vs. PERMANENT LOK ADALAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Srilankan Airlines Ltd., a foreign airline company, doing service in India, and its Airport Manager at Thiruvananthapuram International Airport, are the petitioners in this writ petition. They are challenging Ext. P3 order of the Permanent Lok Adalat for Public Utility Services, Thiruvananthapuram, passed in OP No. 10/2006 filed by the 2nd respondent herein. The 2nd respondent was a passenger in flight No. UL-228/UL/161 of the 1st respondent from Dubai to Thiruvananthapuram. He booked two baggages in the said flight at Dubai Airport weighing 23 kgs. and 42 kgs. by paying additional baggage fare for excess baggage. At the time of arrival at Thiruvananthapuram Airport, the baggage weighing 42 kgs. was found missing. He immediately reported the matter to the Airlines authorities and demanded compensation from the petitioners for the loss of baggage. The petitioners took the stand that they are liable to pay only compensation at the rate of 20 US Dollars per kg. in accordance with clause 22 of the Schedule 2 of Carriage By Air Act, 1972, which would come to Rs.30,688/-. Dissatisfied with the same, the 2nd respondent issued a notice through his lawyer, on receipt of which, the petitioners enhanced the compensation to Rs.38,673/-. On the ground that the compensation offered is grossly insufficient, the 2nd respondent filed OP No. 10/2006 before the Permanent Lok Adalat claiming Rs.10,00,000/- as compensation for the loss of baggage with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of petition till realisation. Ext. P1 is the petition filed under S.22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. The petitioners filed Ext. P2 objections. After hearing both parties, Ext. P3 award was passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat directing the petitioners to pay an amount of Rs.1,43,673/- as compensation due to the 2nd respondent with 12 per cent interest per annum from the date of the petition till realisation. This award is under challenge before me on the ground that the law does not permit the Lok Adalat to pass such an award directing payment of compensation to the 2nd respondent in excess of what is prescribed under clause 22(2) of Schedule 2 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972.

(2.) The contention of the petitioners is that clause 22(2) of Schedule 2 of the Carriage by Air Act specifically prescribes that unless the passenger or consignor has made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carriers, a special declaration of interest in delivery at the destination and has paid a supplementary sum, if the case so requires, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 Francs per kg., which, on conversion, would be 20 US Dollars, for the loss of baggage. According to the counsel for the petitioners, for invoking clause 25, which the Permanent Lok Adalat has done, the 2nd respondent should plead and prove that the petitioners caused damage recklessly with knowledge that their action would probably result in damage, which the 2nd respondent has not chosen to do. Therefore, according to them, the Permanent Lok Adalat was not justified in directing payment of compensation in excess of what has been prescribed in clause 22(2) of the Act.

(3.) On the other hand, the 2nd respondent would vehemently contend in support of Ext. P3 order of the Lok Adalat to the extent it is favourable to him. [He himself has filed WP (C) No. 22284/2007 which is heard along with this writ petition and disposed of separately, seeking enhanced compensation]. According to him, the entire action of the petitioners is suspect. They have not stated in their written statement that they have taken due care and caution in transporting the baggage and the Permanent Lok Adalat has found that even thereafter, the petitioners were totally indifferent in the matter of tracing the baggage, which itself would go a long way in proving that they were reckless and they had full knowledge that their employees had contributed to the loss of the baggage by reckless handling of the baggage of theft. Therefore, according to the counsel for the 2nd respondent, the Permanent Lok Adalat was right in finding that compensation was payable. The 2nd respondent would further contend that WP (C) No. 22284/2007 should be allowed and the entire amount of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by him should be awarded as compensation to him.