ARUNA MISHRA Vs. MANAGING DIRECTOR INDIAN AIRLINES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions have been filed by the legal heirs of the deceased who died in the air crash of the Indian Airlines plane at Aurangabad Airport on April 26, 1993. In Original Petition No. 57 of 1995 complainants are the wife and 3 minor children of Rajindra Mishra (deceased). In Original Petition No. 67 of 1995 first complainant is the wife of Mahabir Prasad Poddar (deceased) and second complainant is the wife and complainant Nos. 3 to 6 minor children of Suresh Kumar Poddar (deceased). All the three namely Rajindra Kumar, Mahabir Prasad Poddar and Suresh Kumar Poddar unfortunately died in the air crash. Claims in both the complaints are for damages resulting from the death in the air crash.

(2.) Whole reliance for claims for damages is on the report of Court of Inquiry constituted under Section 7 of the Aircraft Act, 1934 read with Rule 75 of the Aircraft Rules. The Court of Inquiry was headed by Justice V.A. Mohta, a Senior Judge of the Bombay High Court, who submitted his report on 25th December, 1993. Apart from the report of Justice Mohta there is no other evidence to give the finding of negligence on the part of the two opposite parties or any one of them to sustain the claim for damages. In two Original Petition No. 35 of 1995 entitled Desh Bandhu Gupta & Ors. v. Indian Airlines & Anr., and Original Petitions No. 36 off 1995 entitled Sangeeta Gupta & Ors. v. Indian Airlines & Anr., arising out the same accident of the Indian Airlines aircraft at the Aurangabad Airport, we held that the report of the Court of Inquiry headed by Justice Mohta was not admissible in evidence and that there was nothing on record to support the allegations levelled in the complaints against the opposite parties. We hair, therefore, dismissed those complaints by our judgment dated April 20,2001. Present two complaints are thus covered by the decision in the above mentioned original petitions.

(3.) However, it was contended by Mr. Deshpande, learned Advocate for the complainants that certain points were not taken note of by this Commission when it gave its judgment dated April 20, 2001 in Original Petition Nos. 35/1995 and 36/1995. He referred to Rule 20 to the Second Schedule to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 which he said is to be read with Rule 17. We quote them :