SHAILENDRA KUMAR SARAWGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. D Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. D Panging learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. N Ratan, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4 & 5 and Mr. RH Nabam, learned Additional Advocate General, Arunachal Pradesh representing respondent no.3. None entered appearance on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 & 2. WA 13 (AP) 2015

(2.) The appellants are the relatives of Late Wrishi Bothra and Late Amit Sarawgi. The deceased persons along with 19 other persons including 4 crew members were on the journey to Tawang, Arunachal Pradesh on a chopper belonging to Pawan Hans Helicopter Ltd., the respondent nos. 4 and 5 which departed from Lokopriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport at Guwahati and crashed at its intended landing pad at Ugweny Sangpo helipad, Tawang on 19.04.2011 killing 19 of the 23 passengers. The Government of India, Ministry of Civil Aviation appointed a committee of enquiry to investigate into the tragic accident. The committee, after a thorough enquiry, opined that all the agencies involving in operating the fleet of helicopters were responsible for the death of 19 passengers of the helicopter. The said enquiry report confirmed that there were negligence on the part of the Director General of Civil Aviation (respondent no.2), the State of Arunachal Pradesh (respondent no.3) and Pawan Hans Helicopter Limited (respondent no.4) (PHHL) and as such the appellants as the petitioners claimed that all the three agencies are liable to pay compensation at a higher rate that what is stipulated by the Notification dated 28.1.1998 issued by the Ministry of Civil Aviation, Government of India. The carrier, Pawan Hansa Helicopter Limited offered compensation of Rs. 7,50,000/- each to the victims of the air crash which, according to the appellants, were not enough. The State of Arunachal Pradesh, respondent no.3 in the affidavit-in-opposition admitted the shortcomings raised in respect of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. On the other hand, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 questioned the maintainability of the writ petition. That apart, the respondent nos. 4 and 5 contended that the payment of compensation is governed by the statutory provisions contained in the Carriage by the Air Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and the Rules under first and second schedules.

(3.) The deceased Late Wrishi Bothra was the son-in-law of the appellant/writ petitioner no.2 and Smti. Pushpa Devi Bothra, the mother of Late Wrishi Bothra authorized Dr. Kamal Nahata (appellant/writ petitioner no.2), the father-in-law of the deceased to file WP(C) 223 (AP) 2012. Late Wrishi Bothra at the time of his death was working in J.M. Financial Institutional Securities, Kolkata and had a pay package of Rs. 36,03,788/- per annum.