( 1 ) THE appellant-airbus industrie is a groupment d'interest created under the laws of france engaged in the business of manufacturing passenger and cargo aircraft since 1969. The first aircraft manufactured by them was called airbus a-300. The second aircraft called a-320 was introduced later and was supplied to various renowned airlines All over the world.

( 2 ) RESPONDENT no. 10, the indian airlines , corporation purchased about 20 AIR crafts a-320. One such aircraft purchased by respondent no. 10 was an aircraft bearing registration vt-epn. On 14-2-1990 this aircraft bearing registration vt-epn was a schedule passenger flight from Bombay to Bangalore being flight no. Ic 605. In the course of this flight while attempting to land at Bangalore airport at 13-03 hours contacted ground approximately 2,300 feet before the beginning of runway no. 9 within the boundary of golf association and immediately thereafter hit the embankment which was the boundary wall of the golf court: as a result, the fuselage, the wings and other parts of the aircraft disintegrated. With the result, 92 passengers and four crew members perished and the remaining 54 survivors sustained injuries of varying degrees of severity.

( 3 ) THE director general of civil aviation, respondent no. 11 and the government of India ordered an investigation into the circumstances of the accident under Rules 71 and 75 of the indian aircraft rules, 1937. One Sri satyendra singh was appointed as the inspector of accidents under rule 71. Thereafter, a judicial court of inquiry was held in Bangalore under the hon'ble Mr. Justice k. Shivashankar bhat, a judge of this court to hold investigation under section 75 of the aircraft rules. In this inquiry the assistance was rendered by three technical assessors cap. B. s. gopal, director, flight safety, AIR india; cap. C. r. s. rao, director of training (retd.) And Sri s. g. goswamy, director of air-worthiness (retd. ). In this inquiry 35 witnesses, majority of whom are indian nationals, were examined which was commenced in march, 1990 concluded during the beginning of october, 1990. A commission report of the court of inquiry is published running into 581 pages giving proximate cause for this disaster. The proximate cause is ascribed to an error on the part of the pilots employed by indian airlines ltd. , inter alia, failing to monitor approach speed and using an incorrect thrust made. Criticism is also made on hindustan aeronautics ltd. , who occupied and operated Bangalore airport due to delays caused in extinguishing the fire. The court of inquiry also analysed in detail the investigation report submitted by the inspector of accidents.

( 4 ) THE respondents 4 to 9, on 12-2-1992, filed a suit in the High Court of judicature at Bombay in suit no. 1652 of 1992 against the 10th respondent, indian airlines corporation and hindustan aeronautics ltd. , who is not a party in the present suit in which they claimed compensation at Rs. 5,95,24,989-56 ps in the equivalent of pound sterling. All the plaintiffs in the said suit are british nationals of indian origin. The cause of accident, according to the plaintiffs in the said suit, was due to improper and insufficient training of the pilots to fly the said aircraft and inadequate knowledge and wrong understanding of some of the systems of the aircraft. They have also attributed non-ensure of the fact that the aircraft was air-worthy or not. According to them, the pilots are inexperienced, improperly trained and lack of understanding with the systems of the aircraft. Against the hindustan aeronautics ltd. , the allegation of respondents 4 to 9 was not providing immediate and timely fire fighting services during and after AIR crash. Therefore, they claimed compensation over and above the compensation paid under the provisions of the indian carriage by AIR Act, 1972. The appellant was not a party in the said proceedings. As far as the 10th respondent is concerned, he has e