NATIONAL CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION

                                                                                                NEW DELHI

 

 

ORIGINAL PETITION  NO. 130  OF  2001

 

Mrs. Anita Bhatia & Ors.                                              …        Complainants

 

                                    Vs.

 

Kenyan Airways                                                           …        Opposite Party

 

BEFORE:

           

            HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA,

                                                                          PRESIDENT

                        HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE J.K. MEHRA, MEMBER.

                        MRS. RAJYALAKSHMI RAO, MEMBER.

                        MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER.

 

Carriage by air  Act, 1972 -   IIA (IATA Intercarrier Agreement on Passenger Liability) AND  MIA (Measures to Implement  the IATA   Intercarrier Agreement)  - Kenyan  Airways  Agreement under IIA and MIA - principles applicable to award of damages - Fatal Accident Act -  M.S. Grewal 7 Anr.  vs. Deep Chand Sood  &  Ors. - JT 2001 (7) SC 159.

 

 

 

For the complainant                  :  Ms. Monika Arora, Advocate

 

For the opposite Party              :  Mr. H.D. Nanavati and  Mr. Subrot Birla, Adovcates

 

 


                                                O R D E R

 

 

DATED THE    2nd August, 2002

 

JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA, J.(PRESIDENT)

 

                       

                        This complaint pertains to the Carriage by Air Act, 1972 (for short the CA Act) which incorporates Warsaw Convention in Schedule –I and in Schedule II   it is the Warsaw Convention  again as modified  by the Hague Protocol.  We have to deal with the liability of Kenyan Airways, an international air carrier, on account of the death of  Sanjeev Bhatia, a passenger, in  the air crash which occurred on 30.1.2000.  Sanjeev Bhatia had taken the flight No. KQ-431  of the Airways from Bombay to Nairobi when it crashed into the sea of Ivory Coast near Abidjan  resulting in the death   of Sanjeev Bhatia and other  passengers.

                        This complaint is by the legal heirs  of Sanjeev Bhatia being the wife and two children, one minor, claiming Rs.2,22,91,066.80 as compensation.   In fact the total claim made is Rs.2,53,87.024 out of which an amount of Rs.30,95,968/-    had been received earlier  by the complainants as compensation by way of settlement.  Complainants have challenged the settlement which was arrived on  20.4.2000 in the sum of  US $ 70,800  and payments received, when  this complaint was filed on 2.5.2001.  Earlier a notice dated 19.9.2000 challenging the settlement and seeking more compensation  was issued by the   complainants through their lawyers.   This was immediately  replied to by the Kenyan  Airways through their Solicitors  by their letter dated 22.9.2000 denying the allegation of the complainants.   This was again replied to by lawyers of the complainants by letter dated  20.11.2000  and thereafter this complaint came to be filed.  

                        It is the contention of the complainants that figure of compensation was wrongly arrived at by the Kenyan Airways and the complainants were coerced  to sign the settlement.   Complainants  say that they were threatened that in case they did not sign the settlement they would  not be paid even a single penny as compensation and they would be left to litigate in Courts for the next decade  to get the compensation.  It is also mentioned that  Kenyan Airways took advantage of the position of the  complainants who were in grief and sorrow in getting the agreement signed which they  allege  was result of undue influence exercised by the Airways  being in dominating position.   

                        Then the complainants  contend they were ignorant of the  IATA  Intercarrier Agreement on Passenger Liability (IIA, for short)   and  subsequent   agreement  to implement the same called Measures to Implement the IATA Intercarrier Agreement (MIA, for short).  On the other hand  complainants say that they were told  that under the CA Act and the Warsaw Convention  the maximum compensation payable  to them would be US $ 20,000 and unless they agree to the amount offered by the Kenyan Airways they will have to face the prospect of  long drawn civil dispute.  The situation created by Kenyan Airways was that ‘take it or leave it’.   Complainants say they were left  with  no choice.  The agreement was signed without their free consent and in violation of the provisions of Sections 14  and other Sections of the Contract Act.  Complainants further say that discharge voucher  got signed from   them would not estop them from claiming higher amount under IIA and MIA as far as Kenyan Airways was concerned as Article 22(1) of the  Warsaw Convention as modified by the Hague Protocol  did not apply.  Since a great deal depends upon these two documents we set out the same herein  in extenso:

Explanatory Note

 

The Intercarrier agreement is an “umbrella accord”; the precise legal rights and responsibilities of the signatory carriers with respect to passengers will be spelled  out in the applicable Conditions of Carriage and tariff  fillings.

 

The carriers signatory to the Agreement undertake to waive such limitations and  liability as are set out in the Warsaw Convention (1929), the Hague Protocol  (1955)  the Montreal Agreement of 1966, and/or limits  they may have previously agreed  to implement or were required by Governments to implement.

 

Such  waiver by a carrier may be made conditional on the law of the domicile of  the passenger governing the calculation of the recoverable compensatory damages   under the Intercarrier Agreement.   But this is an option.  Should a carrier wish to waive the limits of liability but not insist on the law of the domicile of the passenger governing the calculation of the recoverable compensatory damages, or not be so required by  governmental  authority, it may rely on the law of the court to which the case submitted.

 

The Warsaw Convention system defences will remain available, in whole  or in part to the carriers signatory to the Agreement, unless a carrier decides to waive them  or so required by a governmental authority”.

 

 

                        “INTERCARRIER AGREEMENT ON

PASSENGER LIABILITY

 

 

WHEREAS:  The Warsaw Convention system is of great benefit to international air transportation; and

 

NOTING THAT: The Convention’s limits of liability, which have not been amended since 1955, are now grossly inadequate in most countries and that international Airways have previously acted together to increase them to the benefit of passengers.

 

The Undersigned carriers agree

 

1.         To take action to waive the limitation of liability on recoverable compensation, damages.  In Article 22 paragraph 1 of the Warsaw Convention – as to claims  of death, wounding or other bodily injury of a passenger within the meaning  of Article 17  of the Convention, so that recoverable compensatory damages  may be determined and awarded by  reference to the law of the domicile of the passenger.

2.         To reserve all available defences pursuant  to the provisions of  the Convention nevertheless, any carrier may waive any defence, including the waiver of any  defence  upto a  specified monetary amounts of recoverable compensatory damages, as circumstances may warrant.

3.          To reserve  their rights of recourse against any other person,       including rights of contribution or indemnity, with respect  to  any sums paid by the carrier.

4.           To encourage other Airways involved in the international            carriage of passengers to apply the terms of this Agreement to such carriage.

5.           To implement the provisions of this Agreement no latter than 1   November 1996 or  upon receipt of requisite government           approvals, whichever is later.

6.           That nothing  in this Agreement shall affect the rights of the         passenger or the claimant otherwise available under the Convention.

7.           That this Agreement may be signed  in any number of    counterparts, all of which shall constitute  one Agreement.  Any    carrier may  become a party to this Agreement by signing a        counterpart hereof and  depositing it with the Director General of the International Air Transport Association  (IATA).

 

 

8.           That any carrier party hereto may withdraw from this     Agreement by  giving twelve (12)  months written notice of      withdrawal  to the Director General of IATA and to the other    carriers parties to the Agreement.

 

                        Signed this   31s   day of  October   1995”

 

 

“AGREEMENT ON MEASURES  TO IMPLEMENT  THE IATA INTERCARRIER AGREEMENT.

 

“I.        Pursuant to the IATA Intercarrier Agreement of 31 October, 1995,  the undersigned  carriers agree to implement said Agreement by incorporating  in their conditions of carriage and tariffs, where necessary, the following:

 

1.     [CARRIER] shall not invoke the limitation of liability in Article  22(1) of the Convention as to any claim  for recoverable compensatory damages arising under Article 17 of the Convention.

 

2.     [CARRIER] shall not avail itself of any defence under Article 20(1) of the Convention with respect to that portion of such claim which does not exceed 100,000 SDRs [unless option II(2)  is used].

 

3.     Except as otherwise provided in paragraphs 1 and 2 hereof, [CARRIER] reserves all  defences available under the Convention to any such claim.  With respect to third parties, the carrier also reserves all rights of  recourse against any other person, including without limitation, rights of contribution and indemnity.

 

II.    At the option of the carrier, its conditions of carriage and tariffs also may include  the following provision:

 

1.     [CARRIER]  agrees that subject to applicable law, recoverable compensatory damages  for such claims may be determined  by reference to the law of the domicile or permanent residence of the passenger.

 

2.     [CARRIER] shall  not avail itself of any defence under Article 20(1) of the Convention with respect to that portion of such claims which does not exceed  100,000 SDRs, except that such waiver is limited to the amounts shown below for the routes indicated, as may be authorised by governments concerned with the transportation involved.

                                               

            [Amounts and routes to be inserted]

 

3.    Neither the waiver of limits nor the waiver of defences shall
       be applicable  in respect of claims made  by public social    

       insurance or similar bodies however asserted.   Such claims

                                           shall be  subject to the limit in Article 22(1)  and to the

                                           defences  under Article 20(1) of the Convention.  The

                                           carrier  will compensate the passenger or  his dependents

                                           for  recoverable compensatory damages in excess of

                                           payments received from any public social insurance or

                                           similar body.

                       

                        Furthermore, at the option of a carrier, additional provisions           may be included in its conditions of carriage and tariffs, provided they are not  inconsistent with this Agreement and are in accordance with applicable law.

 

I.       Should  any provision of this Agreement or a provision incorporated in a condition of carriage or tariff pursuant to this Agreement be determined to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, all other provisions shall nevertheless remain valid, binding and effective.

                        V          1.     This    Agreement  may    be    signed   in  any  number  of 

counterparts, all of which  shall constitute one Agreement.        Any carrier may become Party to this Agreement by signing a counterpart hereof and  depositing it with the Director General of the International Air Transport Association. (IATA).

 

2.        Any   carrier   Party   hereto   may   withdraw   from  this  

Agreement by giving twelve (12) months’ written notice of        withdrawal to the Director General of IATA and to the   other carriers  Parties to the Agreement.

 

3.        The   Director   General   of    IATA   shall   declare    this

  Agreement    effective    on   November 1st,  1996 or  such

        later     date  as  all  requisite Government   approvals have

        been  obtained  for   this   Agreement   and   the      IATA

        Intercarrier Agreement of 31st october, 1996

 

                                                Singned on this ­­­­__________  day of _______ 1996.

                        IATA is a non-Government body of  international Airways.   It makes  schedules of the scheduled Airways and also decides about air tariffs.  To provide for  uniformity of action by international Airways in case of loss of goods, death or causing injury to the passengers  outside the Warsaw Convention as modified by Hague Protocol..

                        The issue arises for consideration  as to how far the  IATA  Intercarrier Agreement on Passenger Liability (IIA) and Measures to Implement the IATA Intercarrier Agreement (MIA) would be applicable vis a vis the provisions of the CA Act.   First  we go to the relevant provisions of the Air Act.  Admittedly it is schedule-II of the  CA Act which is applicable and it incorporates Warsaw Convention as modified by the Hague Protocol.    Article 17, Chapter III,   which  contains liability of the air carrier, provides that carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death  or wounding of a passenger or any  other bodily injury suffered by a passenger if the accident which  caused  the damaged so sustained took place on board the  aircraft or in the course of  any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.   Article  20 provides the exceptions which says that   carrier is not liable if he proves  that it had taken  all necessary measures to avoid the damage  or that it was impossible  to such measures.      Sub-Article (1) of Article 22 limits the liability of the carrier  for each passenger and  limit is US $ 20000.  To this there is exception contained in Article 25  which says the limit of liability would not apply if the damage  is resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants, or agents, done with interest to cause damage  or  recklessly .   We quote these provision extensively:

“17.  The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took  place on board  the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

 

20.   The carrier is not liable if he proves that he and his servants or agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage or that it was impossible for him or them to take such measures.

 

22(1)    In the ca+rriage of persons the liability of the carrier for each passenger is limited to the sum of 2,50,000 francs.   Where in accordance with the law of the Court seized of the case, damages may be awarded in the form of periodical payments the equivalent capital value of the said payments shall not exceed 2,50,000 francs.   Nevertheless by special contract , the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.

 

25.       The limits of liability specified in Article 22 shall not apply if it is proved that the damage resulted from an act or omission of the carrier, his servants or agents, done with interest to cause damage or recklessly and with knowledge that damage would probably result, provided that in the case of such act or omission of a servant or agent it is also proved that he was acting within the scope of his employment”.

 

 

                        A conjoint  reading  to IIA, MIA and Articles 17, 20 and 22 of  Warsaw Convention would show  that Airways were conscious of the fact that  Warsaw  Convention’s limit of liability has not been amended since 1955 after the Hague Protocol and the liability is grossly inadequate in most countries and that international Airways  have previously acted together to increase them to the benefit of passengers.  IIA and MIA apply in the case of claim for death, wounding, bodily injury of a passenger within the meaning of Article 17 and there would be no limitation of liability and compensation would be determined and awarded  with reference to law of domicile of the passenger.   Carrier shall not avail of any defense under Article 20(1)  with respect  to such compensation which does not exceed US $ 1,35,000.

                        At the time of his death, Sajeev Bhatia  was about 44 years of age. He was in business and  partner of  Laborate Pharmaceeuticals (India).  Kenyan Airways   was approached by the Complainants through   Ajay  Bhatia, brother of the deceased, to know the modalities for making a claim on account of unfortunate death  of Sanjeev Bhatia.     Kenyan Airways  informed  Ajay  Bhatia    that  it had  engaged services of Mr. Hoshang Nanavati, Solicitor of Mulla & Mulla Craigie Blunt and Caroe, Mumbai  to deal with all the claims arising in India and that he  should be contacted. On 15.2.2000  complainants  through  Aditya Bhatia (son of the deceased)  as  partner of  Laborate Pharmaceuticals (India)  wrote a letter to Mr. Nanavati requesting him to send the modalities  to make the  claims for the  death of  Sanjeev Bhatia.   On 26.2.2000 Anita Bhatia(wife of the deceased)   sent the claim form  for the loss of life  of her husband, duly signed and completed in all respects.     She requested for immediate settlement of the claim.   A reminder by Fax was sent on  10.4.2000 where she  wrote that she had not received any reply after she had submitted her  claim.     Mr. Nanavati immediately responded by Fax  on the same day wherein he expressed his surprise over the contents of the Fax of Anita Bhatia.  Mr. Nanavati  said that immediately  on receipt of letter dated 26.2.2000  he had telephoned   Ajay Bhatia, brother of the deceased,  and explained to him legal position, that the compensation  was to be assessed   basically by reference to the pecuniary loss sustained by the  family as a result of the death.  Mr. Ajay Bhatia was requested to send a copy of the return filed by the deceased   or other appropriate evidence of his income  “having regard to the fact that a very substantial   income figure has been mentioned in the  Claim Form without giving  any details as to how that figure had been arrived at  or giving any other evidence in regard thereto”.  This had not so far been done.  Thereafter, it would appear,  documents were forwarded by Ajay Bhatia showing the income of the deceased Sanjeev Bhatia.  On 20.4.2000  an agreement was arrived at and was duly signed by all the  complainants and  witnessed by  S.K.  Bhatia (brother in law of the deceased ) and  Mr.  Nanavati, Solicitor and Advocate.     This agreement is on non-judicial stamp paper of  Rs.120/-.  Under this agreement US $ 70,800 was agreed to be payable as total compensation as a result of death of Sanjeev Bhatia in the air crash.   Same day a discharge voucher  duly signed by same very persons signing the agreement for having received the amount was given.     On 4.5.2000 a letter was  written  by M/s.  Mulla & Mulla  & Craigie Blunt & Caroe to Anita Bhatia stating that  an amount of US $ 70,400 had been remitted to them  as compensation payable  on account of death of her husband and that she had also requested that she be reimbursed the air fare of herself and her son from Panipt to Bombay and back which amounted to Rs.20,400/- (US $ 470), and  thus a cheque for Rs.30,95,968.90 equivalent to US $ 71,270/-  was  being sent to  her.  It was acknowledged by letter dated 9.5.2000 of Anita Bhatia.   As  far as Kenayan Airways is concerned matter rested   at that  till, as noted above, notice was issued by the lawyers of the complainants.   It would be seen  it were rather the complainants who  wanted settlement with all the promptitude.

                        Now  a claim was made that Kenyan Airways   was liable to pay  Rs.2,22,91,055.80  as under:

 

            a)         Compensation payable to the  petitioners                       Rs. 2,01,70,420/-

                        on account of death of Shri Sanjeev Bhatia.

 

I.                    Interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the  Rs    49,66,604.80

date of death  till 1.4.2001

 

            c)         Mental harassment and injury caused to the                   Rs.      2,00,000/-

                        petitioners due to the threat  given by the respondent.

 

            d)         Legal fees                                                                     Rs.          50,000/-

                                                                                                            ------------------

                                                                                    TOTAL:           Rs.2,53,87,024.80

                                                Less amount received                           Rs.   30,95,968.80

                                                                                                            ------------------

 

                                                            Amount payable                       Rs.2,22,91,055.80

                                                                                                            ---------------------“

 

                        This amount  is claimed  as per  the two agreements IIA & MIA.   It is stated that under these agreements even the minimum  amount payable as compensation would be US $ 1,35,000 while settlment arrived at was for US $ 70,800/-..   It was stated in the notice  of the lawyer that these two documents  (IIA & MIA)  were not disclosed by Kenyan Airways with the intent to  deprive    the complainants  of their lawful amount  of compensation and to  induce them to  enter into the  agreement  dated 10.4.2000.  This  apart there has been allegations of undue influence etc.     It was also mentioned in the notice  that principles of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 would apply in  arriving at the correct amount of compensation

            Though the  provisions under CA Act limit the liability, in the present case to US $ 20,000 but then under sub Article (1) of Article 22 this limit would not  apply  when there is a  special  contract under which  the carrier and the passenger may agree to a higher limit of liability.  The  special contract  in the present case by which Kenyan Airways and Sanjeev Bhatia agreed to a higher limit of liability  would be MIA terms of which were accepted by the former  being  members of IATA.  An  argument was sought to be raised, more perhaps in desperation than anything else, that  it is the air ticket  which contains the terms of the contract between the air carrier and the passengers we do not find any such special contract.  Relevant clauses of the air ticket have been brought on record.   But then how  come that in spite  of the   fact that law limits the liability the US $ 20,000 in the present case, Kenyan Airways  agreed to  pay US $ 70,800/-.   Certainly this was on account of the two agreements namely IATA  Intercarrier Agreement on Passenger Liability (IIA) and Measures to Implement the IATA Intercarrier Agreement (MIA).  Kenyan Airways  cannot be permitted  to take a stand contrary  to the terms of IIA & MIA and  particularly  having agreed not to invoke the limit of  liability of US $ 20,000

            The fact that  Kenyan Airways  agreed to pay above  US $ 20,000 as provided under Article 22(1) of the Second Schedule to the Air Act, would that show that it agreed not to avail of any defence  under Article 20(1) of the Conventions  with respect of  that portion of such claims which  did not exceed US $ 1,35,000 is a question which can be answered after we examine  the MIA completed by the Kenyan Airways and filed with IATA.  This has not been produced.      Subject to that  it  would not mean that Kenyan Airways agreed that it would pay a minimum of US $ 1,35,000 on account of death of the passenger.  These provisions do not  provide requiring an air carrier to pay any minimum figure of compensation the figure of  SDR 100,000 equivalent  of  approximately US $ 1,35,000.   It would not be minimum liability figure, but a sum to which  an air carrier is  precluded  from raising any defence under Article 20(1) of the Conventions.   The defence that  an  carrier would take under Article 20   is that  carrier is not liable if it proves that  he, his servants   or agents have taken all necessary precaution to avoid damage  or that it was impossible  for him or them to take such measures.  Only this defence an air carrier would not take if the claim made is below  US $ 1,35,000.  If the claim is over and above US $ 1,35,000 then there is no bar on the air carrier  to take any  defence under Article 20 of the Air Act for the amount in excess of  US $ 1,35,000.  According to Kenyan Airways therefore, there is no provision under the aforesaid  MIA agreement which could  allow award of compensation of US $ 1,35,000 on account of death of passenger without anything more.

                        Under the  MIA  in pursuance to the IIA  entered into on 31.10.1995 the international air carriers agreed to implement that agreement by  incorporation that:

(i)     a carrier shall not invoke the  limitation  of liability  under  Article 20(1)  of the Convention  and

(ii)   to avail itself any defence under Article 20(1)  of the Convention in respect of that portion of that claim which does not exceed  SDR 100,000 approximately US $ 1,35,000   except that such waive is limited to the amounts as may be prescribed..

                        Kenyan Airways has  rejected  the stand now taken by the complainants and  has referred the circumstances under which the agreement came to be concluded and the discharge vouchers signed.  They say after having accepted the amount with their free consent complainants  could not go back and claim higher amounts.   They say that the claim was settled on ‘proof-of-loss’ basis without   reference  to any limit as contained  in the Warsaw Convention.

                         Complainants  came to know of the existence of IIA and MIA subsequent to their signing the agreement and the discharge voucher.  The agreement and the voucher do not at all  refer to these two documents.   It is difficult to accept   the proposition as advanced by Kenyan Airways that complainants supposedly  should have  known  the existence of these two documents as these  two documents  could easily be discovered.    If that was so there was then no need for Kenyan Airways to send these two documents to the complainants with their reply.   Existence of these documents could not have been known to a common man.   Principle of ignorance of law  does not apply as these documents  do not constitute any law.    Kenyan airways do not say  if the contents  of IIA and MIA  were ever brought to the notice of the complainants.  Knowledge of  these two documents was  vital to a fair agreement.   

                        As to how the amount of US $ 70,800 has been arrived at  we were not told by Kenyan Airways .  It is stated by Kenyan Airways that the amount was  arrived at  on the basis of ‘proof-of-loss’ basis without reference to any limit.  Kenyan Airways  do not tell us as to what  formula  was applied to arrive at this figure.   We are inclined to believe the version of the complainants that they did not sign the agreement and gave discharge voucher with their informed consent.   They were certainly acting under the mistaken belief and unless they agreed to accept the figure of US $ 70,800  they would have to face the prospect of tortuous  civil litigation in a Civil Court even to get US $ 20,000.  Existence  of these two documents were not  disclosed   which in our opinion it was the duty of the Kenyan Airways  to do so who were in full knowledge of the same and were bound by the same.

                        As noted above, the compensation  had to be arrived at  as per law of the  country.  For this we have the provisions of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855,  Motor Vehicles Act, 1985 various decisions of the Courts  and  the recent decision of the Supreme Court  in the case of  M.S. Grewal  & Anr. Vs. Deep Chand Sood  & Ors. (2001) 7 JT 159.

                                    To restate it  is the stand of the Kenyan Airways that claim had been  settled  wholly in accordance with Warsaw Convention  read with the   said IIA and MIA, both of which have been signed by Kenyan airways.  It was stated that Kenyan Airways  had given instructions to its Solicitor/Advocate to settle  all claims arising out of air accident in question on ‘proof -of -loss basis’  without reference to such limit of liability of US $ 20,000 under the Warsaw Convention as incorporated in the Act.  It was then stated  in the claim form submitted by the  complainants, Sanjeev Bhatia, the deceased, was shown having annual income of Rs.16,81,035/-.  With the reply to the notice of the complainants, Mulla & Mulla & Craige Blunt & Caroe, Advocates and Solicitors  also sent copies of IIA and MIA.     No doubt a settlement has been arrived at.  But   if it is in  accordance with law of land,  is the question before us.   Has the amount of compensation arrived at keeping in view  the relevant factors and have those factors been  applied in the  given situation?   If the figure so arrived at is less than the amount of compensation  stated to have been settled, the other question is if it was  with the free consent of the complainants pales  into insignificance as the complainants  would  never have consented to a lower figure.     It will therefore be for the Kenyan Airways to spell out  the details as to how the amount of US $ 70,000 as compensation was computed.

                        Before concluding  we would say that after going through the records of the case  as to how settlement  has been arrived at,  we agree with the Kenyan  Airways that allegations made  against  their Advocate/ Solicitor was not proper and made in bad taste.   We are, however, of the view that making allegation against  Solicitor and Advocate, complainants were ill advised.

                        We would, therefore, direct Kenyan Airways to file an affidavit  the details as to how the figure of US $ 70,000 was arrived at keeping in view the age, income and other relevant parameters for fixing the compensation in the case of death by accident of  a person.  Let this affidavit be filed within four weeks of the receipt of this order.

                        To be listed on  26th September, 2002 for directions and further proceedings.

 

………………………………………J

(JUSTICE D.P. WADHWA)

                      PRESIDENT

 

………………………………………J

(J.K. MEHRA)

     MEMBER

 

………………………………………

(RAJYALAKSHMI RAO)

                       MEMBER

 

………………………………………

(B.K. TAIMNI)

                       MEMBER