E N SREENATHAN Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The complaint is filed seeking the following reliefs. To pass an order directing the opposite parties to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- to the complainant with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.7.2000 till the date of payment. Further relief sought for is for awarding compensation and also for awarding costs.

(2.) Before proceeding to state the respective cases put forth by the parties it is worthwhile to reproduce here the relevant Rules 22 and 25 contained in Chapter 3 of the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (for short the Act ). Rule 22 Sub-rule 2 reads thus: "in the carriage of registered luggage and of goods, the liability of the carrier is limited to a sum of 250 francs per kilograme, unless the consignor had made, at the time when the package was handed over to the carrier, a special declaration of the value at delivery and has paid a supplementary sum if the case so requires. In that case the carrier will be liable to pay a sum not exceeding the declared sum, unless he proves that sum is greater than the actual value to the consignor at delivery. " Rule 25 reads as under: " (1) The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this schedule which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or by such default on his part as is in the opinion of the Court equivalent or wilful misconduct. (2) Similarly the carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the said provisions, if the damage is caused as aforesaid by any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment. " We may also state at this juncture itself that no case is pleaded or proved by the complainant for claiming compensation exceeding the limit of liability of carrier provided under Sub-rule 22 (2 ). The allegation made in the complaint is that the entire incident happened only due to the negligent act of the respondent carrier and no case is pleaded that there is wilful misconduct or such default on the part of the carrier as in the opinion of the Commission equivalent to wilful misconduct. No such case is also pleaded or proved that the damage is caused by the wilful misconduct of any agent of the carrier acting within the scope of his employment. So the relevant rule which we have to consider is Sub-rule (2) of Rule 22 contained in Chapter 3 of the Act.

(3.) The facts remained undisputed. As the ticket of the complainant was not confirmed (complainant had booked a seat in Air India Flight No.922 for the journey from Dubai to Calicut on 14.7.2000) he was accommodated in Air India Flight No.708 OXB from Dubai on 14.7.2000 evening. The flight took off at 7. p. m. on 14.7.2000. The route of the said flight was Dubai-Madras-Bombay-Calicut.